Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Coventry Corporation Bill (Certified Bill),

Croydon Corporation Bill (Certified Bill),

London Electric, Metropolitan District, Central London, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill (Certified Bill),

Tees (Newport) Bridge Bill (Certified Bill),

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, and agreed to.

London County Council (Money) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Great Torrington, Minehead, and Taf Fechan Water Supply Board) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Molton Rural) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Uxbridge Joint Hospital District) Bill,

St. Helens Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Wolverhampton Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (PIRACY).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement respecting acts of piracy that have occurred in Chinese waters against British ships; whether any further recent action has been taken by His Majesty's Government to protect British persons or ships; and will he give particulars of any cases on which he has
information where compensation during the previous 12 months has been paid by the Hong Kong Government to the families of officers involved in these piratical attacks?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): As I informed my hon. Friend on the 21st of May, two British ships were attacked by Chinese pirates during the 12 months ended the 1st of May. The temporary arrangements for the protection of British ships by military guards are being continued for the present, but agreement has now been reached with the shipping companies as to the form of the extended police guard organisation which will take their place. The necessary steps to put the system into effect are now in hand, and it is hoped to commence the supply of these guards in lieu of the military at the beginning of July. I am informed by my Noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that a grant of £468 by the Hong Kong Government to the estate of Mr. K. F. Woodward, the third officer of the steamship "Haiching," who was killed in the attack on that vessel in December, 1929, has been approved.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the report shows that piracy is on the increase in these waters?

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Have the Government considered the question of having a special naval patrol in the waters in which this piracy is rife?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid that cannot say that that aspect of the case has been considered, but I will make a note of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

PROPAGANDA.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state when he last made representations to the Soviet Government in regard to the hostile propaganda of the Third International against this country; and whether, apart from reports of action contemplated or taken by various Communist organisations, he proposes to make immediate representations to the
Soviet Government with regard to the repeated hostile propaganda published in the official organs of the Soviet Government during the last few months, and particularly directed to recent events in India?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the replies which I gave to a number of similar questions on the 19th of May and the 26th of May, to which I have nothing to add at present.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he did not reply to the question:
if he will state when he last made representations to the Soviet Government.
If he looks at his answer, he will see that he did not reply to that question.

Mr. HENDERSON: I may not have replied to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman, but I did reply.

Sir K. WOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what reply he did make?

Mr. HENDERSON: The reply on that subject occupied about three columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: What was the object of the pledge given by the Soviet Ambassador, when it is not fulfilled in any respect?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it the opinion of the Foreign Secretary that Russia can do no wrong?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: You think that Russia can do no right.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to tell the House the names of the committee he has set up to investigate the Communist propaganda, and what their terms of reference are?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the tribunal set up by him to inquire into Soviet propaganda is prepared to receive evidence and testimony from private sources?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) on the 28th of May.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it a Departmental Committee? Surely the right hon. Gentleman can tell us the terms of reference.

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already informed the House that machinery has been put into operation, and I do not propose to go further, because I believe it is in the public interest that I should not do so.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to question No. 8, as to whether it will receive such evidence, and may I ask how anybody is going to come forward and give evidence if they do not know what the tribunal is, or where to go?

Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. Member has any evidence and he will forward it to me, I will have it inquired into.

LENA GOLDFIELDS.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to state the stage which has been reached in the Lena Arbitration proceedings at Berlin?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have no information beyond that given in my reply of Monday last.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: As the refusal of the Soviet Government to take part in these proceedings is really equivalent to a refusal to be bound by any decision, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Soviet Government on the subject?

Mr. HENDERSON: I informed the hon. Member on Monday that the case is still sub judice, and the Government do not propose to act so long as it is sub judice.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: As the Soviet Government have refused to submit to arbitration, and that is a refusal to be bound by the award, will the right hon. Gentleman make some representation before it is too late?

Mr. HENDERSON: I will consider that when the award has been given.

NAVAL MOVEMENTS.

Sir K. WOOD: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has now obtained any further information concerning the action of the Soviet Government in transferring certain of their naval forces from
the Baltic to the Black Sea; and whether the Straits Commission have intervened and issued an order forbidding the passage of any additional Russian warships?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries on the subject?

Mr. ALEXANDER: So far as my information goes there is no further transference proposed, but in view of the right hon. Gentleman's questions I think I ought to say that the Straits Commission has no authority so far as I am aware to intervene in the matter of the movements in or out of the Black Sea of warships of the Powers bordering the Black Sea.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORT VISAS.

Mr. MANDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the harm that is being done to British trade by the difficulties experienced by foreigners in obtaining passport visas to visit this country; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Passport visas for the United Kingdom have been abolished in the case of a considerable number of countries. If the hon. Member will inform me of any specific case in which a foreign business man is alleged to have experienced difficulties in obtaining a visa I shall be glad to cause inquiries to be made into the matter.

Mr. MANDER: I will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT).

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the proceedings of the committee appointed to consider the question of actions brought in other European countries on judgments obtained in English courts?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Negotiations between British and Belgian legal experts have resulted in a draft Convention
for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments. His Majesty's Government are now considering this draft together with the question of entering into informal negotiations with certain other countries before the necessary bills are drafted and submitted to Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (POLAND AND LITHUANIA).

Mr. MANDER: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the efforts made by the League of Nations to settle the differences between Poland and Lithuania; and whether the Lithuanian Government has refused to accept the invitation of the League of Nations to attend the session of the Commission for Communications and Transit Traffic?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: It is expected that the report of the sub-committee constituted by the Advisory and Technical Commission of the League of Nations will be ready for the consideration of the Commission when it meets in September. I have no information as regards the second part of the question.

Mr. MANDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is about time that Lithuania stopped behaving like a spoilt child?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ARTIFICER APPRENTICES.

Mr. DAY: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether artificer apprentices are now compelled to purchase clothing such as football boots, jerseys, etc.; whether any compulsory deductions are made from their wages to the canteens; and can he state what is the lowest payment per day made to artificer apprentices?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. As regards the third part the lowest rate of pay authorised for artificer apprentices is 9d. a day.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the ordinary rate?

Mr. AMMON: Not without notice.

BUILDING PROGRAMME.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to additional warship building this year?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I hope to be able to make a statement at an early date after the Whitsuntide Recess.

MALTA.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any changes are contemplated in respect of the status of Malta as a naval base?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The reply is in the negative.

CONTRACTS (SHEFFIELD).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the orders which will be placed in Sheffield as a result of the alteration of the naval construction programme?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Apart from the contracts for the ships and their machinery included in the programmes direct contracts are placed by the Admiralty for the necessary equipment such as guns, gun mountings, armour plate and shell, and it may be anticipated that Sheffield will benefit to an appreciable extent in this connection. The shipbuilders and engine builders who may succeed in getting contracts will also have requirements for steel forgings, some of which sub-contracts will doubtless be placed in Sheffield.

—
Dartmouth Entry Cadet.
Special Entry Cadet.
Mate.


R.N. College, Dartmouth
…
…
3 years 8 months
—
—


H.M.S. "Erebus"
…
…
—
1 year
—


Afloat, as Cadet
…
…
8 months
—
—


Afloat, as Midshipman
…
…
2 years 4 months
2 years 4 months
—


Shore Course at Greenwich
…
…
6 months
6 months
3 months.


Technical Courses at Home Ports
…
…
7 months
7 months
7½ months.

INDIAN WATERS.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the British naval forces in Indian waters have been recently strengthened; whether

MATES.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider introducing an official prize of £10 for mates who obtain first-class certificates in the examination for the rank of lieutenant under similar conditions as those for sub-lieutenants?

Mr. AMMON: The suggestion will be considered.

Mr. T. LEWIS: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any reason still exists for the segregation of mates away from sub-lieutenants during training, the former being sent to Devonport for gunnery and torpedo courses, which the latter undergo at Portsmouth?

Mr. AMMON: The courses undergone by acting mates are not identical with those of acting sub-lieutenants. Lack of accommodation at Portsmouth has in the past necessitated the gunnery and torpedo courses for acting mates being held at Devonport, but the next torpedo course for acting mates will be taken at Portsmouth.

CADETS.

Mr. T. LEWIS: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total time spent by a Dartmouth entry cadet and a special entry cadet, respectively, in the training college or ship, at sea, in shore courses for lieutenant, and also a mate in his qualifying courses for lieutenant?

Mr. AMMON: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFCIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

any cruisers have been ordered from the Mediterranean to India; if so, to what destination in India these cruisers are proceeding; and the total number of warships and aircraft carriers now stationed in Indian waters?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative, and the third part, therefore, does not arise. Vessels of the Royal Navy at present employed on the East Indies Station are:

Cruisers.
Sloops.
Special Service Vessel.


"Effingham."
"Cyclamen."
"Triad."


"Emerald."
"Lupin."



"Enterprise."

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. FRANK OWEN: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to make a statement on the progress of the Disarmament Committee presided over by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty; and what number of persons have been found work by it or are likely to be employed this year?

Mr. AMMON: I think the hon. Member is under some misapprehension. If he is referring to statements already made as to the efforts of the Admiralty to secure the stabilisation of employment in the Royal dockyards, I can inform him that these efforts are being continued.

SERVICE RATINGS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any progress has been made with the scheme put forward in the interests of economy for retaining in the service ratings who have served for more than the present maximum period of 22 years?

Mr. AMMON: This matter is still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIGHTING SERVICES (BACON SUPPLIES).

Viscount WOLMER: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much is expended on the purchase of bacon for the Navy per annum; and what would be the additional cost if only home-grown bacon were used?

Mr. AMMON: Bacon is purchased directly by the Admiralty only for naval hospitals and the Royal Hospital School, Greenwich. The cost is about £2,400 per annum. Canadian bacon smoked in this
country is specified as being suitable for the purpose; the extra cost if homegrown bacon were supplied would be approximately £530 per annum. The bacon consumed in His Majesty's ships and naval establishments, other than hospitals, is supplied, as required by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, and the information asked for by the Noble Member is not immediately available.

Viscount WOLMER: Does not the hon. Member think it would be a good plan to encourage British agriculture?

Mr. AMMON: I was under the impression that the Noble Lord desired to encourage Empire trade.

Viscount WOLMER: 38 and 67.
(1) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how much is expended on the purchase of bacon for the Air Force; and what would be the additional cost if only home-grown bacon were used;
(2) asked the Secretary of State for War how much is expended on the purchase of bacon for the Army per annum; and what would be the additional cost if only home-grown bacon were used?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Shinwell): The value of the bacon purchased in this country for the Army and Air Force during the last financial year was about £190,000. This bacon was mainly of Dominion origin. It is estimated that the purchase of home-grown bacon only would have involved an increased cost of at least £40,000.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: What percentage did not come from the British Empire?

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Member can make his own calculation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

MCMAHON CORRESPONDENCE.

Mr. McSHANE: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as a result of the promised reconsideration, he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to the McMahon correspondence?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): I have been asked to reply to this question. No, Sir; it is not yet possible to make any statement.

Mr. McSHANE: Can the hon. Member give us an idea when he will be in a position to make a statement?

Mr. LUNN: I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in which he said that the matter was under examination, and I suppose that as soon as it is concluded a statement will be made.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will this correspondence be ready after the Whitsuntide Recess?

Mr. LUNN: If a question is put down after the Whitsun Recess, a definite answer can be given.

INQUIRY (EVIDENCE, PUBLICATION).

Major NATHAN: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state the intentions of His Majesty's Government as to the publication of the evidence given before the committee of inquiry into the recent disturbances in Palestine?

Mr. LUNN: It is not yet possible to name a date for the publication of the evidence; but it is anticipated that it will be in the latter part of this month.

PRISONERS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that political prisoners in Palestine have renewed their hunger-strike because of the alleged failure of the prison authorities at Acre to observe assurances given for special treatment to be accorded to political prisoners; how many prisoners are now hunger-striking in Palestine; what improvements have been made for reasonable privileges to be accorded to political prisoners; and what further action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. LUNN: No information has been received from the High Commissioner on the subject. As regards the treatment of political prisoners, I would invite reference to the reply given on the 21st of May to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Horrabin).

Mr. McSHANE: What is the nationality of these prisoners?

Mr. LUNN: I cannot say what is the nationality of the prisoners referred to in the question.

IMMIGRATION.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the widespread disappointment and inconvenience caused by the cancellation of 2,300 certificates granted to Jewish immigrants, he will invite Sir John Hope Simpson to make this question the subject of his first inquiry and report?

Mr. LUNN: The High Commissioner has been asked to confer with Sir John Hope Simpson on the possibility of the matter being treated in this way. As has already been explained to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Marcus) on 21st May, it is not correct to speak of the cancellation of certificates.

Mr. WHITE: Are we to understand from the reply that these certificates are merely suspended?

Mr. LUNN: That is what was said by the Secretary of State in reply to a question a fortnight ago.

Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Member aware of the very violent disturbance in the minds of the Jewish community at the cancellation of these immigration arrangements, and will he endeavour to make some statement at the earliest possible moment to satisfy them?

Mr. McSHANE: Is the hon. Member aware of the disturbing effects of the immigration of these Jewish people on the minds of the Arabs?

Mr. LUNN: It is wrong to say that they are cancelled. They are only suspended.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my hon. Friend aware that this cancellation is looked upon as a condonation of murder by Arabs?

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. THURTLE: A wicked question.

WAILING WALL, JERUSALEM.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for
the Colonies whether he has information about police action against Jewish worshippers at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem on 25th May, when the beadle was arrested while prayers were being recited at the Wall; and if he will state why worship is again being interfered with in view of the inquiry by the International Wailing Wall Commission?

Mr. LUNN: No information has been received from the High Commissioner with regard to any such incident.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Member be good enough to make inquiries and let me have an answer?

Mr. LUNN: I will.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Minister of the Maltese Government has been recently received by his Department; and whether he can state the purpose of the visit?

Mr. LUNN: The Maltese Minister for Public Instruction and Migration has recently visited the Colonial Office. The purpose of his call was to express his views with respect to the present political situation in the island.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it proposed to issue the statement given to the Colonial Office by the Prime Minister and Ministers in Malta in the same way as the White Paper published by the Foreign Office?

Mr. LUNN: I am not able to give a definite answer on that matter, but I will convey the question to the Secretary of State.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask whether the Prime Minister and Cabinet of Malta sent a statement to the Colonial Office giving their view of the situation in Malta and will the Colonial Office consider the advisability of publishing it as a White Paper?

Mr. LUNN: I have no doubt that the matter will be considered, but that is as far as I can go at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (TAXATION OF SHIPPING).

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what information he can give as to the proposal to institute Income Tax in Ceylon applicable to shipping calling at Colombo; and whether he will request the authorities in Ceylon to reconsider their proposal in this respect?

Mr. LUNN: The draft Income Tax Ordinance, which is at present being considered by the Legislative Council of Ceylon, provides that where a non-resident person carries on the business of shipowner or charterer, and any ship owned or chartered by him calls at a port in Ceylon, he shall be deemed to carry on business in Ceylon, and his profits therefrom may be computed on a fair percentage of the full amount paid or payable to such person or his representative on account of the carriage of passengers, mails, livestock or goods shipped in Ceylon. Where such person renders a statement which satisfactorily discloses the full profits arising from the carriage of passengers, mails, livestock and goods shipped in Ceylon, the profits arising from his shipping business in Ceylon may be computed by reference to such statement. Criticisms of this and other sections of the draft Ordinance have been received and are being communicated to the Governor of Ceylon for his consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — FEDERATED MALAY STATES.

Captain WATERHOUSE: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the date on which Sir William Peel left his post as chief secretary of the Federated Malay States to return to England; and the date on which the written statement with regard to the Jelai Kechil was obtained from the Maharajah Peiba Jelai?

Mr. LUNN: Sir William Peel left Malaya on the 30th November last. My Noble Friend has no information as to the date when the written statement to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was made, but he will obtain the information from the High Commissioner.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

NYASALAND.

Mr. HANNON: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has had under consideration the official report on the external trade of the Nyasaland Protectorate for the year 1929; if he has noted the growth of intensified foreign competition with British trade in the Protectorate; and what steps he is taking to maintain the predominance of British goods in this market?

Mr. LUNN: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third part, would direct the hon. Member's attention to the 18th paragraph of the report.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not important that His Majesty's Government should concentrate upon keeping this market for British manufacturers and that active steps should be taken to prevent the increasing volume of foreign trade?

Mr. LUNN: It is of great importance that we should retain, encourage, and develop this market and markets in every part of the Empire, and I would call the hon. Member's attention to the paragraph in the report which says that it is only by personal representation in the first instance followed by a live agency, that is adopting the methods of foreign firms, can British manufacturers recover trade which has been lost. That applies to parts other than Nyasaland.

Mr. HANNON: But will the Government exercise their influence and back up these representatives?

Mr. LUNN: His Majesty's Government are willing to help manufacturers as far as possible in developing trade in any markets.

TARIFFS.

Major COLVILLE: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, if, as the result of the tariff truce, he has been enabled to secure the entry on more favourable terms of British goods to any of the foreign countries which signed the convention?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As my right hon. friend the President of the Board of
Trade informed the hon. and gallant Member on 13th May last, the reduction of tariffs and of other obstacles to trade is not dealt with in the Commercial Convention, but is, under the arrangements concluded at Geneva, to form the subject of future negotiations.

Major COLVILLE: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that this country will be left in a strong position to negotiate for entry into such markets after a tariff truce?

Mr. GILLETT: Yes, Sir.

Mr. HANNON: Does this mean that no concession of any sort or kind will be made to this country by the Continental communities which are contributing parties to this treaty, and that we are to stand the whole brunt of foreign competition with no possibility of defending ourselves?

Mr. GILLETT: No, Sir, it does not mean that. It means that another stage has still to be entered upon before I can give any definite answer.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: How many stages more are there?

Mr. GILLETT: Only one or two stages more.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY (STOCKHOLDERS).

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: 34.
asked the Under Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Government of Canada have yet informed him of their decision upon the petition of the Grand Trunk Perpetual Preference stockholders presented to the Dominion Parliament in April of this year?

Mr. LUNN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

AIRSHIPS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the cost of the design contract for the new airship that has been given out; and whether this will involve a supplementary Estimate?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): In answer to the first part of the question, the contract
is not for the elaboration of a complete new airship design but for the employment of a technical staff partly to investigate possible detail improvements in the design of R.100 and partly to discover what improvements and modifications to the R.100 type of airship would be necessary, if it were decided to build an airship of capacity greater than five million cubic feet. There is a limit of £2,000 a month to the payments under the contract; expenditure to date is £7,800. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative; provision for this service is made in Air Estimates, 1730, Vote 3 N.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that this staff is not designing another great new airship?

Mr. MONTAGUE: It means exactly what I have said in my reply. There is no design of a new airship, because a new airship has not been authorised.

Mr. WELLS: Is it contemplated to design a new airship of 5,000,000 cubic feet?

Mr. MONTAGUE: No; the word "contemplated" is not appropriate. The matter is one of policy, which must be decided some time in the future. In the meantime, it is desirable to keep the technical staff in being.

Mr. L. SMITH: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the delay in the departure of the R.100 to Canada is to any extent due to the mooring mast in Canada not being suitable for the purpose for which it was intended; and whether any alterations are being made to the nose of the airship in consequence?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative; the postponement of the flight to Canada is entirely due to the failure of the tail fairing piece of the R.100 is explained in my reply to the hon. Members for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones) and Willesden, East (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on 28th May.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when Airship R.100 will commence her flight to Canada; and what programme is being arranged for Airship R.101?

Mr. MONTAGUE: It is hoped that R.100 will be ready for her flight to Canada towards the end of this month or the beginning of July. While her sister ship is in Canada, R.101 will carry out some experimental flying in this country and will then be put back in her shed for the insertion of the extra bay. When the extra bay has been installed, R.101 will undertake her experimental flight to India; I am not in a position to name a, precise date for this flight.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the visit of Members of this House to this airship is likely to take place?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I answered a question of that kind some time ago, to the effect that it would probably be in July. I do not know anything different.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the R.100 take the Lord Privy Seal to Canada?

Mr. WELLS: Is a new bay being built at the present time?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Some minor modifications are being done at Cardington. I do not know that a new bay has actually been commenced.

SPEED RECORD (LOANED MACHINES).

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, seeing that, as a result of representations made to him by the Australian Government, His Majesty's Government have agreed to lend a 2,000 horse-power engine for an attempt on the world's speed record by a private individual, His Majesty's Government will do the same for any resident in Great Britain or Northern Ireland?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The Australian application related to a 1,200, not 2,000, horse-power engine, and as such an engine is available, the loan of it has in principle been approved, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions as regards payment of freight, insurance and reconditioning charges. There is no 2,000 horse-power engine available nor a second engine of 1,200 horse-power.

HYDE PARK.

Mr. SANDERS: 59.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has under consideration the question of permitting
a certain portion of Hyde Park to be used as an air port; and whether he is in a position to make a statement?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I have seen the reports in the newspapers, but the matter has not otherwise been brought to the notice of my Department. The only statement I can make is that personally I have no intention of giving countenance to any such project.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LICENSED CARRIAGES (CONSTRUCTIONAL REGULATIONS).

Mr. DAY: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any information that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or any other licensing authorities in Great Britain are considering introducing relaxations in the constructional requirements applicable to licensed carriages that apply for hire; and can he give particulars?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am not aware that the Commissioner of Police or any other licensing authority in Great Britain is considering introducing relaxations in constructional requirements applicable to licensed carriages that ply for hire.

Mr. DAY: Has my hon. Friend received any complaints that these Regulations which prevent standardisation affect our export trade?

Mr. MORRISON: I require notice of that question.

ROAD WORKS.

Mr. VAUGHAN: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can trace any marked acceleration in road work in response to his appeal to county councils on 26th March, 1930, to put agreed road schemes into operation with the greatest practicable speed and to press forward negotiations on outstanding schemes?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am glad to say that many county councils have responded actively to the appeal mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport whether there are any statistics available to show the amount of money which could be spent
during each of the next five years upon roads to the economic advantage of the country as opposed to roads for luxury purposes?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I regret that it is not possible for me to give the hon. Member statistics of this kind.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 64.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any estimate which he has received from Sir Henry Maybury as to expenditure, additional to present programmes, which might usefully be made upon roads had relation to all roads the construction or improvement of which is desirable in the national interest, or to those roads which the local authorities would be likely to propose; and whether any such estimates included bridges?

Mr. VAUGHAN: 66.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the £20,000,000 estimated by Sir Henry Maybury as the sum which can be usefully spent in the next five years over and above the programme of road works already sanctioned includes the £9,000,000 set aside for the Charing Cross Bridge and other works of urban improvement; and, if not, to what class of works the £20,000,000 specifically relates?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have been asked to reply. The estimate of £20,000,000 received from Sir Henry May-bury covers the cost of schemes of road construction and improvement, additional to present programmes, which might in his opinion usefully be carried out, including schemes which the local authorities themselves would not be likely to propose. The estimate allows for any necessary construction or reconstruction of bridges on the roads. I may add that Sir Henry has advised that he does not think that more than the amount he has suggested could usefully and economically be expended upon the highways of the country in addition to the programmes already sanctioned. The estimate does not include any expenditure on the Charing Cross Bridge scheme.

RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS, RADSTOCK.

Mr. GOULD: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been directed to a fatal accident at Radstock where a boy was killed by a passing motor coach on the county bridge; if he is aware of the danger to
pedestrians at that point due to the existence of two railway level crossings over the bridge; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have received a report from my divisional road engineer with regard to this unfortunate accident and am taking the matter up with the county council and the railway companies with a view to measures being taken to add to the safety of pedestrians at this point.

ROAD DISTURBANCE (LONDON).

Mr. HARRIS: 52.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the recent serious obstruction caused to traffic by the laying of pipes and cables in Regent Street and the neighbourhood of Victoria; and what steps the Government has taken to encourage the construction of underground subways?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am aware that the London Power Company are engaged upon the works referred to by the hon. Member but no complaint has been made to me of any avoidable obstruction. The desirability of instituting an inquiry into the general question of underground subways is under consideration.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Why is it the practice of the Department to take up all these roads in June and July every year?

Mr. MORRISON: I am quite aware of the superstition which exists to that effect, but I am advised that it is not in accordance with the facts.

LONDON TRAFFIC.

Mr. HARRIS: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to be able to present his scheme for dealing with London traffic; and whether he expects it to be ready before the end of this Session?

Major NATHAN: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the position as regards the projected London Traffic Bill?

Mr. GEORGE OLIVER: 56.
asked the Miniser of Transport whether in view of the urgency of the matter, he is now in a position to make any statement as to the Government's policy in respect of the London traffic question?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Progress is being made with the preliminary investigations, which, as I informed the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) on 5th December last, have been entrusted to Sir William McLintock, but I am not able to state when I shall be in a position to present the Government's proposals to the House.

Mr. HARRIS: Have not these investigations been going on for nearly a year, and ought we not by now to have completed at least the preliminary stage?

Mr. MORRISON: It is perfectly true that the financial investigations have been proceeding for some time, but the financial organisation of the undertakings concerned is one of some complexity, and some time has had to be taken. The hon. Member may be sure that nobody is more anxious than I am to get the investigations concluded at the earliest possible date.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it would be much quicker to re-introduce the old London Traffic Bill?

Mr. MILLS: Will the Minister consider the increasing development of arterial roads maintained by local authorities, and is the acquisition of that work as a national measure under consideration?

Mr. MORRISON: I think that supplementary question has no relation to the original question. As regards the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) the Government have no intention whatever of re-introducing those completely unsatisfactory proposals.

Major NATHAN: Is any progress being made as regards the main lines of agreement with the various authorities and bodies concerned, apart from some inquiry into financial matters?

Mr. MORRISON: The difficulty on that point is that it is impossible to enter into negotiations, even on broad lines, until we have all the information as to the present financial facts and have substantially determined, in a preliminary way, our own policy, particularly on the financial aspect of the matter. Therefore, negotiations at this stage would be inadvisable.

Major NATHAN: Have the Government decided as to the principle on which they intend to proceed in this matter?

Mr. MORRISON: Yes, certainly, and that principle was announced to the House in December last.

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.

Major NATHAN: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport the position as regards the Charing Cross Scheme; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the question of the promotion of a scheme for the construction of a new bridge at Charing Cross, is a matter which falls primarily to be dealt with by the London County Council as the bridge authority. I understand that the London County Council at their meeting yesterday, decided not to take any action with a view to recommitting the Charing Cross Bridge Bill, but to appoint a Committee representative of all the interests concerned. Until I have had an opportunity of fully considering the matter, I shall not be in a position to make any statement.

Mr. MILLS: Will the Minister consider, in view of the importance of this bridge to the future development of London, the proposal that the design should go out to competition?

Mr. MORRISON: That was always intended, but—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go into that subject now.

CARMARTHAN TOWN BRIDGE.

Mr. HOPKIN: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the present state of Carmarthen Town Bridge as the result of the recent accident; if he is satisfied as to the safety of the bridge; and if he proposes to do anything to accelerate the building of the new bridge?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: No report has reached my Department of any recent accident to the Carmarthen Town Bridge, but the condition of the structure is such as to cause some concern, and my Department has discussed with the local authorities on several occasions the best means for providing improved traffic facilities. I hope that these discussions
may result in the production of a scheme which the local authorities will be prepared to carry out with assistance from the Road Fund.

CHISWICK-CHERTSEY ROAD.

Major HARVEY (for Sir JOSEPH LAMB): 51.
asked the Minister of Transport what new constructional work is now in progress on the Chiswick-Chertsey arterial road and, approximately, how many men are at present employed; when tenders will be let for the new bridges at Mortlake and Richmond, sanctioned for this road in the Middlesex and Surrey Thames Bridges Act, 1928; and when work will be started on the section of the road between Twickenham and Chertsey?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The new road from Clifford Avenue to the proposed new bridge at Mortlake (Chiswick) is on the point of completion, and only 11 men are still employed thereon. The construction of the new road from the proposed new bridge at Richmond to Kew Road is in progress and 33 men are employed on this section. It is hoped to invite tenders for the new bridge at Mortlake (Chiswick) within the next few weeks, and for the new bridge at Richmond by August. No proposals have been submitted by the county council with respect to the section of road between Twickenham and Chertsey.

Oral Answers to Questions — BATTERSEA POWER STATION.

Sir K. WOOD: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement with reference to the Battersea power station?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any further statement in regard to this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (SITTINGS).

Sir A. POWNALL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if before the Whitsun Recess he will announce the Government's intention as to concluding the present Session of Parliament in the summer or whether it is intended to carry it on till the autumn?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I should be obliged if this question were repeated after our return after Whitsun.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the problem of unemployment is due to world causes, he will consider the desirability of calling a world conference to consider the matter?

Mr. MANDER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state whether the Government are prepared to invite the League of Nations to give close attention and study to the problem of unemployment, with a view to its being treated on a world-wide basis?

The PRIME MINISTER: The possibilities of extending world trade and thus relieving unemployment have already engaged, and continue to engage, the attention of the League of Nations and its economic organisation. In particular I would call attention to the elaborate programme for future negotiations which forms the subject of the Protocol signed at Geneva on 24th March last. This Protocol contemplates that negotiations shall be undertaken as soon as possible between the signatory Governments in order
to determine the speediest and most effective means of adjusting economic conditions in their respective countries, of organising more rationally the production and circulation of wealth and of removing as far as possible unjustified hindrances which hamper the development of international trade.
I need hardly say that His Majesty's Government will co-operate actively in the endeavour, so far as lies in their power, to bring these negotiations to a successful issue.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the failure of the Protocol of his right hon. colleague?

Mr. FREEMAN: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the advisability of asking the International Labour Office to make a statement with regard to unemployment, and any suggestions for its alleviations?

The PRIME MINISTER: Naturally, the International Labour Office is involved in this matter.

Sir K. WOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether this solution is to be included in the short or long method of dealing with unemployment?

The PRIME MINISTER: Both.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the Prime Minister cable the League of Nations that Blenheim has won the Derby?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a question which affects the Opposition more than us.

RELIEF SCHEMES (GRANTS).

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 78.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is prepared to consider the modification of the present Regulations of the Unemployment Grants Committee regarding the transfer of labour in connection with unemployment relief schemes, so as to permit of the fullest financial terms being made available to local authorities who are prepared to employ unemployed workers resident within the immediately surrounding districts, although the percentage of unemployment there may fall below 10 per cent.?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): This suggestion has been made, and will, of course, be considered, but my right hon. Friend cannot give any undertaking that it will be possible to adopt it.

Mr. MILLAR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling among local authorities, who want first to absorb their own unemployed on unemployment relief works before being forced to take transferred labour?

Mr. LAWSON: I am sorry I cannot add anything to what I have said except that the hon. Member's question will receive consideration.

Mr. MILLS: In the Whitsuntide Recess, will the Minister of Labour bring to the notice of the Cabinet the overwhelming decision of local authorities, including that of Woolwich, to agree to transfer schemes so long as the proportion of unemployed remains as high as it is?

TRANSFERRED WORKERS (EVICTIONS, STIRLINGSHIRE).

Mr. SULLIVAN (for Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM): 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that at Falkirk Sheriff Court, on Friday, 30th May, eviction orders were granted at the instance of James Nimmo and Company, Coalmasters, Redding Colliery, Stirlingshire, against four families on the ground that the houses occupied by them were service tenancies, and that these families had been transferred from Lanarkshire to the above colliery on a promise that had not been kept; and whether, in order to prevent employers in the mining industry in Scotland abusing the privilege they now enjoy over other owners of houses, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to enable the Courts to exercise a discretion in the granting of eviction orders in what is known as service tenancies?

The SECPETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed that the let in each case was for the period of a week and contingent on the tenant remaining in the employment of the colliery company. Decrees were granted of consent for removal not sooner than four weeks from date of decree. I have no information as to the matter referred to in the second part of the question, but I understand that the hon. Member is addressing a question to the Minister of Labour on the subject. As regards the concluding part mineowners are legally in the same position as regards service lets as other owners of houses, and I am not now in a position to give any undertaking as to legislation on the subject.

Mr. SULLIVAN (for Mr. D. GRAHAM): 77.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that four families named Collins, Lambie, Lepinski and McDonald were sent from the Employment Exchange area in which Hamilton Palace colliery is situated to work at Redding colliery, Stirlingshire, owned by James Nimmo and Company, on the promise that their wages would not be less than the recognised standard rate; that they removed their families to houses owned by the above-named company on that understanding; that they worked in that colliery for several months
and never were paid the wages they were induced to believe by Employment Exchange officials they would be paid; that, having left the colliery, they are now to be evicted from the houses they occupy; and whether she will arrange that the officials of her Department shall be advised to discontinue the practice of transferring workmen from one part of the country to another unless after consultation with the organisation to which the transferred persons belong or a written guarantee being received from the employer to whom they are being transferred that the wages promised will be paid?

Mr. LAWSON: I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH HERRING INDUSTRY.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 48.
asked the Prime Minister what arrangements have been completed to enable the Civil Research Committee on Fisheries to take evidence from Scotland regarding the need for replacement of unseaworthy herring drifters and other fishing vessels; whether the Committee proposes to visit Scotland; and whether it will be prepared to receive evidence in Scotland which may be submitted by representatives from the various fishing centres there?

The PRIME MINISTER: Important evidence has been received by the Fisheries Committee of the Economic Advisory Council respecting the Scottish herring industry and arrangements have been made for further evidence to be submitted on this subject; as regards the second part of the question, in view of the evidence already given and arranged to be given, the Committee do not consider that it will be necessary for them to visit Scotland. The third part of the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. MILLAR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it desirable to afford every facility to those witnesses who cannot attend in London to give their evidence in Scotland; and, as this committee has to deal with Scottish matters as well as with matters affecting England, why should the committee not sit in Scotland?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly certain that those questions were considered by those immediately responsible for the taking of evidence by the committee and I am also sure that if the hon. and learned Member communicates with them, they will consider everything he says in a most sympathetic manner.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the fact that very valuable evidence has already been received from Scotland?

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the Prime Minister state whether the report of this committee will be published and when the policy of the Government with regard to the herring fishing industry is likely to be announced?

The PRIME MINISTER: Really it is no use putting that question about 40 times—

Mr. BOOTHBY: It is the first time that I have put it.

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member will excuse me in that case. The rule is laid down, perfectly clearly, that the reports of these committees are primarily private reports for the information and guidance of the Government. In special cases and when no injury can be done, reports may be published, but an answer can never be given, either yea or nay, until the report is actually in our possession and that consideration rules all these reports.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Prime Minister aware that a great deal of evidence has already been received from Scotland, some of it very valuable, including that of fishermen in his own constituency?

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING REGULATIONS.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will request the National Physical Laboratory and the Building Research Station to embark upon an investigation with the specific object of enabling them to advise on their own initiative local authorities as to how such authorities can advantageously eliminate rules and practices from existing building regulations which do not take into adequate consideration
modern improvements in building materials and methods, and are consequently hindering employment in the building and co-operant trades?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): As was stated in answer to the hon. Member's question of 3rd instant, the question which he raises is in London for the London County Council. Elsewhere the bylaws referred to have been in recent years subjected to a process of reconsideration with reference to modern improvements in building materials and methods, and I may add that the Building Research Station is engaged on continuous and systematic investigation into building materials and structure.

Mr. SAMUEL: Would it not be reasonable to ask the National Physical Laboratory to examine the London Building Acts and to report upon those provisions which are not obsolete?

Miss LAWRENCE: In London the procedure has been governed by special Acts, and it is necessary for the London County Council to bring forward a Bill in Parliament. Obviously, therefore, it is for the London County Council to approach the National Physical Laboratory, if necessary.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is it not the case that, as the London County Council is not bringing forward such a Bill, building operations are being held up and much unemployment is being caused?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES ACT.

Major CARVER: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that there are now 280 public companies who have not complied with the requirements of the Act to lodge annual accounts and balance sheets, although in some cases a period of over five months has elapsed, he will now reconsider his decision and issue an invitation to three Members of the House of Commons to examine and report upon the suitability of the organisation to which is entrusted the supervision of the requirements of the Act of 1929 in relation to the point under review?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The number of cases outstanding has now been reduced to about 200. As regards the arrangements for dealing with this matter I would refer to the very full reply which was given on the 6th May to questions asked by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) and the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORT DUTIES (MOTOR TYRES).

Major COLVILLE: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received representations from any British consumers or manufacturers indicating that the duty on imported motor tyres has caused hardship?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: No, Sir. I have received no such representations.

Major COLVILLE: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that both in price and quality British-made tyres give general satisfaction to the British public?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (BOOT CONTRACT).

Mr. GOULD: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any representation has been made to the Government on behalf of the hand-sewn boot operatives of the Rounds district, with a view to securing part of the Army boot contract being made hand-sewn, so that these special craftsmen may not be rendered unemployed; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. SHINWELL: No representations on behalf of the hand-sewn boot operatives have been made more recently than the summer of last year, but the question has been considered on frequent occasions since the War, and it has been established that there are strong practical as well as economic objections to the re-introduction of the hand-sewn boot for Army use.

Mr. GOULD: Is my hon. Friend aware that these men have largely built up their craft and given the larger part of their life in the service of the War Office, and would he be prepared to receive representations on this point?

Mr. SHINWELL: Of course, I should be happy to receive representations, but I can hold out no hope of any change being made.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMON LANDS.

Mr. EDE: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture in how many cases during each of the years 1927, 1928, and 1929 his Department received representations that road construction or road widening proposals would involve the virtual enclosure of common lands; and in how many such instances his Department took action to secure that an equivalent area of land to that enclosed should be added to the common?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The number of cases in the years 1927, 1928, and 1929, in which this Department received representations that road construction or road widening proposals would involve inclosure of common lands were five, three, and five, respectively. In all these cases provision has been made for the addition of lands of at least equivalent area.

Mr. EDE: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider seeking the co-operation of the county councils in securing a survey of the unenclosed common lands?

Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind in connection with any legislation dealing with a survey of commons.

Mr. EDE: Is it contemplated that any such legislation, which has been recommended since 1913, will be brought in in the near future?

Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid that I could not give any assurance on that point.

Mr. EDE: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will draw the attention of lords of manors and other persons entitled to the soil of land subject to rights of common to the advantage to the public and to themselves of declaring by deed that Section 193 of the Law of Property Act applies to such land?

Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend will consider the issue of a notice summarising
the provision of the Section of the Law of Property Act, 1925, to which my hon. Friend refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIVISECTION.

Mr. FREEMAN: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state the number of experiments that were conducted by vivisection during 1929; and, if so, how many were conducted on dogs and cats, and how many when inspectors were present in each case?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The vivisection figures will not be available for another two or three weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE ANTI-PROHIBITION UNION (SWEEPSTAKE).

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: 74.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to take action under the Lottery Acts against the Empire Anti-Prohibition Union, of Buchanan Buildings, Holborn, which is conducting a Derby sweepstake among the alleged members of the union who pay thereto no subscription?

Mr. SHORT: Action in such matters is for the police, and I understand that the City Police have this case in hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (DIVIDENDS, RECLAIM VOUCHERS).

Mr. MALONE: 76.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain in detail the reasons which prevent the Revenue Department cancelling the arrangement by which stockbrokers and dealers issue vouchers for reclaim of Income Tax deducted at the source?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 28th May on this subject. If he wishes, however, I shall be happy to arrange for the matter to be explained to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (NATIVE EDUCATION).

Miss RATHBONE: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if
he will make a statement showing for North and South Nigeria, respectively, what has been done, by or with the assistance of the Government, for the education of native girls and women, including the names of institutions existing for the purpose, with the numbers of the staff and pupils at each and the amount, if any, of Government grant received?

Mr. LUNN: I have been asked to reply to this question. I regret that it is not possible to give detailed figures. Most of the assisted mission schools make provision for both boys and girls, but the expenditure on Government grants is not shown separately. The latest annual report on education in Nigeria gives a list of 18 assisted girls' schools with a total enrolment of 2,859 pupils in the Southern Provinces. In addition, there is the Government secondary girls' school at Queen's College, Lagos, which has 43 pupils. Its staff consists of one principal and three teachers, of whom two are Europeans. In the Northern Provinces there are several mission schools which provide some education for girls, and Government is now commencing two schools at Kano and Katsina in order to make a beginning in the Moslem areas. Fuller information will be found in the annual report of the Education Department of Nigeria, but it is not sufficient to enable me to give further details.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the hon. Member be kind enough to give particulars with regard to Queen's College in Southern Nigeria?

Mr. LUNN: I think the information will be found in the education report for Nigeria, but I have not got it here.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member say how many schools there are in all? He said that there were several.

Mr. LUNN: The question relates to girls' schools, and I have dealt with that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell us what the business will be during the week that the House reassembles after the Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. Tuesday, 17th June: Finance Bill, Committee.

Wednesday, 18th June: Supply (13th Allotted Day). The Vote will be announced before the Whitsun Adjournment.

Thursday, 19th June: Finance Bill, Committee.

Friday, 20th June: The business will be announced later.

As usual, other business may be taken on any day if time permits.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am much obliged. Does the Prime Minister think that during that week he would be able to give the House any indication of the Government business which he expects to include, and at what date he hopes to wind up the Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact, I have been working at that for a little time, very badly interrupted by pressing affairs. I would like to make the announcement as quickly as I possibly can. I would not commit myself to stating that it will be made in the first week, but the House may assume that, as soon as it is possible for me to make this statement, I will do so.

Mr. BALDWIN: How far does the Prime Minister desire to go to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would like to get a bit of way in view of the answer which I have given about the business for the Session. We shall propose to take the Lords Amendments to the Coal Mines Bill, and the Lords Amendments to the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Bill. I would call the latter purely drafting Amendments, none of which are of any substance; that is my information. The Motion in the name of the Secretary of State for War is rather pressing, and, in any event, it belongs to the order of exempted business. There is another Order—the Air Transport (Subsidy Agreements) Bill; there is a great risk that unless that is dealt with before we rise for Whitsuntide, a contract which is in process of execution may be seriously jeopardised. I do not propose to go further than that.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 110.

Division No. 335.]
AYES.
[3.41 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Daggar, George
Harbord, A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dallas, George
Hardie, George D.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Dalton, Hugh
Harris, Percy A.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Day, Harry
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Alpass, J. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Haycock, A. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Dickson, T.
Hayday, Arthur


Arnott, John
Dukes, C.
Hayes, John Henry


Aske, Sir Robert
Duncan, Charles
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Ede, James Chuter
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Ayles, Walter
Edmunds, J. E.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Barnes, Alfred John
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Herriotts, J.


Batey, Joseph
Elmley, Viscount
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
England, Colonel A.
Hoffman, P. C.


Bellamy, Albert
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Hollins, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Foot, Isaac
Hopkin, Daniel


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Horrabin, J. F.


Benson, G.
Freeman, Peter
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gibbins, Joseph
Isaacs, George


Bromfield, William
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Brooke, W.
Gill, T. H.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Brothers, M.
Gillett, George M.
Johnston, Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gossling, A. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gould, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Buchanan, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kennedy, Thomas


Cameron, A. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Cape, Thomas
Groves, Thomas E.
Kinley, J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Knight, Holford


Chater, Daniel
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lang, Gordon


Compton, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Cowan, D. M.
Harbison, T. J.
Lathan, G.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lawrence, Susan
Noel Baker, P. J.
Snell, Harry


Lawson, John James
Oldfield, J. R.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Leach, W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sorensen, R.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Stephen, Campbell


Lees, J.
Palin, John Henry
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Perry, S. F.
Strauss, G. R.


Longbottom, A. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sullivan, J.


Longden, F.
Picton-Tubervill, Edith
Sutton, J. E.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Pole, Major D. G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Lowth, Thomas
Ramsay, T. S. Wilson
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lunn, William
Rathbone, Eleanor
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Richards, R.
Thurtle, Ernest


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tillett, Ben


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Tinker, John Joseph


McElwee, A.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tout, W. J.


McEntee, V. L.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


MacLaren, Andrew
Rowson, Guy
Turner, B.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Vaughan, D. J.


Macpherton, Rt. Hon. James I.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Viant, S. P.


McShane, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wallace, H. W.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Watkins, F. C.


Mansfield, W.
Sanders, W. S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


March, S.
Sandham, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Marcus, M.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Markham, S. F.
Scrymgeour, E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Marley, J.
Scurr, John
Westwood, Joseph


Mathers, George
Sexton, James
White, H. G.


Matters, L. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Maxton, James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Messer, Fred
Shield, George William
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Millar, J. D.
Shillaker, J. F.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mills, J. E.
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Montague, Frederick
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Morley, Ralph
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wise, E. F.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinkinson, George
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Mort, D. L.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Moses, J. J. H.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)



Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Muff, G.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Mr. William Whiteley and Mr.




Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Albery, Irving James
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Long, Major Eric


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Atkinson, C.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Meller, R. J.


Balniel, Lord
Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Berry, Sir George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Boyce, H. L.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bracken, B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Purbrick, R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsbotham, H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Buchan, John
Hartington, Marquess of
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Salmon, Major I.


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Savery, S. S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Simms, Major-General J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smithers, Waldron


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement




Turton, Robert Hugh
Wells, Sydney R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wolmor, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir


Wayland, Sir William A.
Womersley, W. J.
Frederick Thomson.


Question put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Fylde Water Board, Oldham and Rochdale) Bill, without Amendment.

Reading Corporation Bill (Certified Bill), with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Birkenhead Corporation Bill [Lords],

Sutton Coalfield Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Newport Corporation (No. 2) Bill,

That they have agreed to the Amendment made by the Commons to one of their Amendments to the Newport Corporation (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

Reading Corporation Bill (Certified Bill),

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

LAND DRAINAGE (No. 2) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 17th June, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (KIDDERMINSTER AND LLANELLY) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL, ORDER (HENDON RURAL) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GOOLE AND OLDHAM) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

FALMOUTH CORPORATION WATER BILL. [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

LOCHABER WATER POWER BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a few general observations to the House in regard to the Lords Amendments. Many of the Amendments which we have to consider this afternoon are purely drafting in character, and there are one or two which make the Clauses in the Bill clearer, and I should propose to ask the House to agree to those Amendments.

Mr. SPEAKER: We must first propose the Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put and agreed to.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Schemes regulating production, supply and sale of coal.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 4, leave out "four," and insert "six."

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment deals with the period during which schemes may be submitted. The period mentioned in the Bill is four weeks. In the course of the discussions in another place, 10 weeks was suggested as the period, but eventually, as a compromise, six weeks was inserted. I think there is nothing in this particular point; it only allows a little more time, and does not make any difference as to the date on which schemes come into operation.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 40, leave out "and" and insert "or."

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is purely of a drafting character, providing that a new district
scheme may be submitted by the central council or a district organisation.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions of central scheme.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 35, leave out from the word "district," to the word "of" in line 36.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I am moving to agree with this Amendment on the ground that two lines lower down we state this point in rather clearer language.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 38, after the word "allocation," insert
such maximum being fixed after taking into consideration and providing for the last ascertained consumption in that district of coal produced therein;

Read a Second time.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment in line 3, to leave out the word "consumption," and to insert instead thereof the words "supply and sale."
This Amendment refers to the part of the Bill which imposes upon the central council the duty of preparing schemes and providing for various matters to be dealt with. The words introduced in another place say that the maximum allocation for each district is to be fixed
after taking into consideration and providing for the last ascertained consumption in that district of coal produced therein.
The object with which these words were introduced was explained in another place, and explained also in a letter to the "Times" newspaper this morning. I am not concerned with that controversy, but, as the words read, it seems to me they will raise a position of very great difficulty, and possible absurdity in some districts. Take the case of an undertaking which mainly, if not entirely, produces coal for export purposes. In view of what is practically a direction to them, what are the central council to do in a case where the coal is not "consumed" in the district but is sent abroad—if we give to the word "consumed" its ordinary meaning in the English language? I am not quite satisfied that the words I have suggested are
really satisfactory. I had thought of putting down the word "disposal," but I find that word is defined in the Interpretation Clause in such a way as to make is inapplicable. The point I want to deal with is where no coal produced by an undertaking of the kind described is consumed in the district.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I can set at rest the anxiety of my hon. Friend by saying that we do not propose to recommend the acceptance of the Amendment from another place.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Would it not be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if you were to permit a discussion upon the Amendment generally, and upon the consequential Amendments, which would only become relevant if the Lords Amendment were accepted, at any rate in principle? I think it would be very difficult to discuss this Amendment without discussing the merits of the general proposition.

Mr. SPEAKER: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is very difficult to discuss this Amendment without discussing the Amendment moved by another place, and I therefore propose to allow a general discussion.

Mr. GRAHAM: Under this Clause in the Bill the central scheme may provide for the allocation to each district, in the terms of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2), of a maximum output for the district which is afterwards described as the district allocation. The Amendment proposed in another place says that such maximum shall be fixed,
After taking into consideration and providing for the last ascertained consumption in that district of coal produced therein.
4.0 p.m.
I understand this Amendment was made partly in the interests of certain colliery proprietors in Staffordshire and, it may be, in other areas. In that county there are three districts, and the argument seemed to be that when the maximum output was to be fixed account should be taken of the coal consumed in that area in each of its districts. In other words, so far as I can understand, it is an attempt to suggest that the area of consumption
runs with the area of production, or can run with it, whereas it must be obvious that that is not the state of affairs, and if that proposal were accepted chaos would be complete. Perhaps the best illustration I can give is the case of Lancashire, which county consumes far more coal than it produces. If the last ascertained consumption in the period prior to the institution of this allocation were taken into account, it would mean that there would be, in practice, no regulation of the output of the collieries in Lancashire at all, and, as I understand it, there would require to be a corresponding and unfair restriction of production in collieries in other districts which were not in the position of the Lancashire collieries. For that reason, I hope, also, the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member is at present before the House. Does he wish to proceed with it?

Mr. EVANS: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not see any point in proceeding with the Amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment to Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I feel in some difficulty about this Amendment, and it is a very good example of the difficulty of legislation of this kind, which is general in its character, and seeks to impose a general scheme which may work in some districts, but may very seriously damnify other districts. If the Amendment is put in a perfectly general form enacting—though I do not think these words do it—that every producing district is to have as its quota the consumption of that district, then, I agree, you get a ridiculous position in two ways. If you take a district like Lancashire, which consumes a great deal more coal than it produces, then, obviously, Lancashire will get a quota of 130 or 140 per cent. of its standard tonnage. That becomes ridiculous. Equally, I agree with my hon. Friend, that when you deal with a district like South Wales or
Durham, which produces a great deal more coal than it consumes in the district, and a large part of its output goes in the export trade, there is another difficulty. If a general hard-and-fast rule were laid down, South Wales might get a quota which would give it 100 per cent. of its total consumption, but would give it practically nothing for export. I agree that that becomes fantastic when stated in those terms, but that is no answer if by this proposal you do an injustice to some other district. We have to find some outlet.
As I understand, the case put forward here is with regard to South Staffordshire, a coal-field with which I am not personally acquainted, and one which is of a peculiar character. They work there a very large seam of a rather inferior quality, and not only as regards the mining industry, but as regards the other industries there has not been a general development under which, at the present time, a large part—probably the whole—of the output of the mines in South Staffordshire is used in that district. That, I gather, is the position. The Staffordshire people, I understand, are afraid that if there is given to a Central Board, representing all the districts in the country, a general discretion to fix quotas for districts as they like, then Staffordshire may be given a far lower quota than the amount of coal which it produces to-day, and which it sells to the Staffordshire industries, to the great convenience of those industries. The right hon. Gentleman says that he feels difficulty in meeting that position, because it is difficult to draft a Clause of general application which will meet the South Staffordshire case. I submit to him that he ought to try to draft a Clause which will meet the South Staffordshire case, if it be a good case.
The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with this specific point. He ought to produce some Clause to meet the South Staffordshire case if it be a reasonable one, while safeguarding the position of the South Wales export trade, on the one hand, and without giving a tremendously excessive allocation to Lancashire on the other. I venture to suggest that he might find it in words like these—"after taking into consideration the last ascertained consumption in that district." That is not to say that
you have got to provide for the last ascertainment, but it would give to the Central Board a general indication of the lines they were to follow in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Obviously, in the case of Lancashire, they would say there were special circumstances, but when they came to deal with Staffordshire under a proposal of that kind, the prima facie case which would be made out before the Central Board would be that Staffordshire should be allowed to produce the amount which it has been producing in the past and has been selling to Staffordshire industries. But that would not be final. If they were able to show that there would be a great diminution in production in the ordinary way, they might reduce it. Under Sub-section (2, h), if Staffordshire or any other district felt that it was suffering by a decision of the Central Board, it would have an appeal to an independent arbitrator, who would be able to give a final decision. I suggest to the House, which, I am sure, wants to do justice between all these districts, that we ought not to leave an area, even if a small one, to the possibility of being unjustly overridden by a large majority of other districts, though I agree that we ought to safeguard the interests of the great districts.
I put to the President of the Board of Trade these points: First have I correctly stated the Staffordshire case? Secondly, is not that in substance the position which Staffordshire to-day enjoys under the Five Counties Scheme? I think that South Staffordshire is in that scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If that be irrelevant, I do not want to enter upon that consideration. But have I correctly stated the South Staffordshire position? If I have, then is not there a case made out, both as regards the coal-owners in that district and as regards the industries in that district, for consideration by the Central Board in the way which I have indicated? Thirdly, would not the words which I have suggested give to the Central Board a direction to show South Staffordshire that consideration, and the right of appeal if they thought they were damnified by this proposal? Fourthly, if my words are not appropriate to the case, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest words which will do justice throughout the scheme?
I would add only this: I do not think that it is an argument, or a conclusive
argument, to say that all these matters will be before the Central Board when it comes to consider the subject, because the interests of all the other areas are bound to be considered by the Central Board, and it may well be that some small district with a particular claim for consideration would not get a full or fair consideration by a Central Board representing a number of great districts. If we think it ought to have that consideration, then we ought not to leave it to the chance judgment of the Central Board, but we ought now to put in general words and directions which would direct the Central Board to give fair consideration to such matters.

Mr. MANDER: The question raised by this Amendment is giving very great concern to the South Staffordshire coalowners. This is not a matter which affects coalowners in North Staffordshire and Cannock Chase. The South Staffordshire coalowners are afraid, not only that their quota may be cut down very considerably from what it has been in the last few years, but that a decision might even be taken to cut down the South Staffordshire coalfields altogether. It is, in some respects, a unique coalfield, working under rather different conditions from many competitors outside. There may be a certain amount of jealousy—I do not know—but they are definitely afraid of what may happen to them if they are not protected by some Amendment of this kind. I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade will go rather further, and give a full explanation of what the position may be. Will it be possible for them to be cut down completely, or their quota cut down considerably? I think that there ought to be, some definite assurance given to the South Staffordshire coalowners before we part with the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman is able to say anything to allay the very real fears and alarms created in South Staffordshire, I think it will do a great deal to ease the situation, even if he is not able to accept this Amendment.

Mr. HANNON: I rise to support the suggestion of my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member who has just spoken. This question has given very serious disturbance of mind not merely in the South Staffordshire coalfield, but to the various industries
in that district which depend upon that coalfield for their efficiency. If, under the operation of the original Clause, South Staffordshire coal were to be restricted, it would mean a deficiency of coal for that very active part of the country. The whole of the output of the South Staffordshire coalfield is employed for industrial and household purposes in that part of the country. I do not think that any part of the South Staffordshire coalfield exports at all. The whole of the output of this rather peculiarly constituted field is given to the immediate locality within a radius of 20 miles, and now there is this grave consideration, that in that district now supplied with coal from that field, if the quota were to come down in any serious way, coal would have to be imported from a very considerable distance at increased cost, raising the cost of production in the industries in that area.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade knows very well how difficult is the situation at present in the Black Country and in the whole region round Birmingham and the Midlands. We are finding the greatest difficulty in maintaining continuous capacity in the great variety of industries in that part of the country. If these additional difficulties are to be imposed by this Bill, the position will be intensified very considerably. Owing to the special circumstances of this case, such as the thickness of the seam, the accumulation of dirt and so on, if the period of working is restricted these collieries will inevitably have to close down. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade is the last person in the world to lend himself to any injustice in that part of England which even now is in a very difficult situation.
I support the contention of my hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway that this is a case for exceptional consideration, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could not see his way to agree to the Amendment which has come from another place, and which was put in after very full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, whether he would be prepared to say that he would give instructions to the Central Council that this coalfield should be given special consideration when its, quota comes up for consideration. That
I think, would give some measure of satisfaction. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to contemplate the situation that will arise if under the operation of the quota the output is reduced by 10 or 15 per cent. for the whole country, and this becomes operative over the South Staffordshire coalfield so as to restrict the supply of coal over the industrial activities of that area. Apart from the natural anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman to see this Bill through the House in its original form, I am sure that if he contemplates that situation he will see the importance of accepting this Amendment.

Colonel LANE FOX: I do not think that this is a matter of any real controversy as between the two sides of the House. I think everyone will see considerable difficulty in accepting the Amendment as it stands, but I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, if the words "and providing for" were left out, it would not then be an innocuous Amendment, which might, at any rate, leave room for a proper consideration of the special circumstances of the case which, for all that we know, may exist in other places when the Act comes into operation. No one wishes to injure this particular district where, as everyone must recognise, the circumstances are very distressing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not, prematurely and without consideration, turn down the case of this coalfield, and I trust that he will accept the suggestion which I have made.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly repeat the suggestion which he has made, because I did not hear it?

Colonel LANE FOX: The suggestion I made was to leave out the words "and providing for," and, if I were in order, I should move an Amendment to leave out those words.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not be in order now in moving such an Amendment. The Question before the House is, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel
Lane Fox) that it would have been better if we could have left out the words "and providing for." There was considerable controversy over this question, and this is a genuine attempt between the Government and the Opposition to find an agreed form of words. I have no actual knowledge of the South Staffordshire problem, but I do know what a very big thing it is to have transport costs higher than is absolutely necessary. It seems to me absurd if this Bill is going to work in such a way as to compel a works to take its quota from some other part of the country, and to pay increased transport charges rather than get the whole of the coal that they require from the immediate neighbourhood.
We are always saying in this House and outside how important it is to cut down overhead costs, and, unless some Amendment is put in the Bill, it seems to me that we shall be, by law, forcing certain works to get their coal on increased transport charges which are not necessary in the least. The President of the Board of Trade may say that, when the Commission are examining these cases, they will naturally take that matter into consideration, but I really cannot see why some such Amendment as is suggested cannot be accepted by the Government. There are very few districts I know which are really affected, but those districts which are affected are important, and I hope that the Government will try and find some form of words, if not these words, and either persuade the district council itself to say that they will take the matter into consideration or allow the Amendment itself to remain part of the Bill.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I gather that the President of the Board of Trade, in his opening remarks, said that this Amendment was proposed in the interests of certain coalowners in South Staffordshire. I should have thought that he would agree that the Amendment is far more interesting to consumers in South Staffordshire. These industries in what is called the Black Country take, as far as I know, the whole of their consumption from this coalfield, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson) has pointed out, any modification in the quota of the production of those mines must involve the transport of coal from outside the
area. Consequently, the only portion of the community that will gain will be the railway companies, while the consumers will lose by enhanced cost paid for transport.
The President of the Board of Trade might consider the question of the quota of coal in the industries which have used this particular type of coal for a great number of years. Presumably they have found it suitable to their works, and their boilers are adjusted to take this class of coal. Now they are going to be put into the position of having to purchase coal from outside, probably of a quality and class which they do not desire. Allusion has been made to the physical difficulties in this coalfield, and I do not think it is fully realised how waterlogged these pits can become if they are not continuously in operation. If by the application of the quota the working days are cut down, extra unremunerative pumping will have to be done, and of course the overhead charges will be proportionately increased. Allusion has also been made to the thickness of the seam. I think it is a 30-foot seam, and that also causes grave difficulty if there is not continuous and full-time working.
I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman can find means of adjusting this position. We realise that, generally speaking, it will be very difficult to produce an Amendment which can cover the whole country on these lines without causing difficulties in Lancashire and elsewhere, but that is the right hon. Gentleman's business, because he has produced this Bill with all its imperfections and inequalities, and it is he who is stretching areas like South Staffordshire on a bed of Procrustes so that it has to have its limbs cracked and stretched in order to fit other districts into this bed which the right hon. Gentleman has prepared. I hope that, on consideration, the right hon. Gentleman will see that this is an exceptionally important point, and that he may be able to find words which will meet what I think is the unanimous desire of the House.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: In this discussion reference has been made mainly to South Staffordshire, but I think the same problem will arise in other districts. Take, for example, North Staffordshire.
The reason that the Potteries are there is not because of the clay, but because of the special suitability of the coal in that particular area. If by the operation of this Bill it is found necessary to import coal from another area, the Potteries will not only be saddled with the additional cost, but they will be subjected to the great inconvenience of loss through being compelled to use coal which is not suitable for their particular work. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will endeavour to find some words which will meet this difficulty which will arise not only in South Staffordshire, but also in North Staffordshire.

Captain PEAKE: This Amendment expresses the anxiety of the districts concerned as to the principle on which their allocation is going to be fixed. The trouble arises simply and solely because the Bill lays down no principle of any kind upon which the allocation is to be based. The only principle, in practice, upon which allocation can be based is the principle of past results. In practice, the allocation for the next quarter or for the next month will be fixed on the supply and sale of coal in the last quarter or the last month. I see the difficulty in which the President of the Board of Trade is placed in regard to this matter, and I agree that we cannot, at this stage of our economic history, introduce artificial geographical barriers across which coal is only to be allowed to pass under certain conditions. If we cannot retain Free Trade within the limits of the United Kingdom, I agree that there is little hope of getting it extended to a wider sphere, but I believe that this would be a way out of the difficulty. I cannot agree with the suggestion of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox). That suggestion still leaves the geographical barrier in position. I believe, however, that if the Amendment were made to read as follows:
such maximum being fixed after taking into consideration and providing for the last ascertained consumption of coal produced therein,
leaving out the words "in that district" and getting rid of the geographical barrier, we should have the clear and distinct principle that the allocation
should be fixed upon the last ascertained consumption of coal produced in the district. I believe that this result could be arrived at if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to withdraw the Motion which is at present before the House, and to allow an Amendment to be moved in the form which I suggest. Then we should have the perfectly clear principle that past results were to guide the Central Council in fixing the allocations, and it is perfectly clear that the past results would keep those allocations up to date. If the consumption of Lancashire coal were decreasing, and the consumption a South Yorkshire coal were increasing, that would be seen in every quarterly ascertainment of coal consumed produced from those districts. You would get that perfectly clear principle, and the smaller districts would then know exactly where they stood, while the arbitrators, to whom in the last resort this question will have to go, would have a clear guiding principle which I believe is the principle that the right hon. Gentleman always had in his mind, although it is nowhere stated in the Bill.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I can only speak again by the leave of the House, but it may be the desire of hon. Members that I should try to explain the position, particularly in reference to some of the suggestions which have been made in different quarters of the House. To that end it may be easier if I recall the steps which are taken in the particular area to which hon. Members have referred. Under the First Schedule of the Bill, North Staffordshire, South Staffordshire exclusive of Cannock Chase, and Cannock Chase, are three districts for the purposes of the Measure, and the practical effect of this is that, assuming that these districts proceed without amalgamation, or until they are amalgamated, there would be an allocation to each of them by the Central Council of a certain quantity of coal which they were entitled to produce over the period for which that production was fixed. The debate in another place, and to an appreciable extent the discussion here this afternoon, seems to exclude North Staffordshire and Cannock Chase, and to concentrate on the South Staffordshire area, and hon. Members express the fear that under the quota there will be such a reduction of output as will either close collieries in
that area, or will so increase the cost of winning their coal as to put them at a disadvantage, or will generate a wider complication and penalise industries in that particular district. Let me try to address myself to these considerations.
It is quite impossible, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) has recognised, with, if I may say so, his very great experience of the industry, to take anything like a geographical basis; but there is not the least doubt that that is the underlying consideration, or at all events has been up to this point, of many of the advocates of this change. You can fix quite easily and freely the area of production, and, in a general way, you know the margins of the area of distribution; but you cannot fix that in any precise form. Suggestions have been made that it might be a radius of 10, 15, 20 or 25 miles, but of course one figure is just as meaningless as another.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Blandford Forum Extension) Act, 1930.
2. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Guildford and West Kent Main Sewerage District) Act, 1930.
3. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Fylde Water Board. Oldham and Rochdale) Act, 1930.
4. Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1930.
5. Severn District Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1930.
6. Coquet Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1930.
7. Boston Oyster Fishery Order Confirmation Act, 1930.
8. East Surrey Water Act, 1930.
9. Selsey Water Act, 1930.
10. Bristol Corporation (No. 1) Act, 1930.
11. Liverpool Exchange Act, 1930.
12. Wakefield Corporation Act, 1930.
13. Derby Corporation Act, 1930.
14. Portsmouth Water Act, 1930.
15. Great Western Railway Act, 1930.
16. Tees Valley Water Act, 1930.
2199
17. Scottish Central Electric Power Act, 1930.
18. Milford Docks Act, 1930.
19. Malvern Hills Act, 1930.
20. Barnsley and District Light Railways (Abandonment) Act, 1930.
21. Faversham Oyster Fishery Act, 1930.
22. Falmouth Water Act, 1930.
23. Borough Market (Southwark) Act, 1930.
24. Great Western Railway (Docks) Act, 1930.
25. Newport Corporation (No. 1) Act, 1930.
26. Newport Corporation (No. 2) Act, 1930.
27. Metropolitan Railway Act, 1930.
28. Kingsbridge and Salcombe Water Board Act, 1930.
29. Birkenhead Corporation Act, 1930.
30. East Kent District Water Act, 1930.
31. Mid Kent Water Act, 1930.
32. Sutton Coldfield Corporation Act, 1930.
33. Coventry Corporation Act. 1930.
34. Croydon Corporation Act, 1930.
35. London Electric, Metropolitan District, Central London, and City and South London Railway Companies Act, 1930.
36. Tees (Newport) Bridge Act, 1930.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:—

Clergy Pensions (Older Incumbents) Measure, 1930.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES BILL.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 38, after the word "allocation," insert:
such maximum being fixed after taking into consideration and providing for the last ascertained consumption in that district of coal produced therein;

Question again proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. GRAHAM: I was explaining that under the Bill there will be three districts, North Staffordshire, South Staffordshire exclusive of Cannock Chase, and the Cannock Chase area and that, assuming that these districts continue as separate districts under the first Schedule, that is, are not amalgamated, there would be from the Central Council a district allocation in each case. It is, of course, provided
under the Bill that, if any of these districts is dissatisfied with its allocation, it can take its disagreement to arbitration, that is to an independent arbitrator, who reviews all the circumstances, considers the position as between the Central Council and the district machinery and gives his decision. Quite apart from that, and the fact that he, of course, will take all the circumstances into account, the owners who make up the executive boards in these districts would themselves, together with the Central Council or the national body, have to keep every factor before them so that there is a complete safeguard under the Bill without going to the dangerous and, as I regard it, impossible position that this Amendment would create.
Let me turn now to one or two of the suggestions that have been made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox) recognised that there was difficulty in leaving the words as they stand in the Amendment, and suggested that the situation could be met if the words "and provided for" were excluded and if it were merely a kind of broad instruction, as I understand it, to take into consideration the last ascertained consumption in that area. I am bound to remind the House that that is precisely the suggestion that was made in another place, and it was rejected by the noble Lord who was in charge of the Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper on the ground that, if those words were taken out, it meant nothing at all. In other words, he said it simply leaves you exactly where you were before the district machinery and before the central machinery, with direct allocation to that district, and the right of that district to arbitration, and, of course, that is perfectly correct. The words with that part deleted are quite meaningless and are quite unnecessary, and it would not help us in the least to include them in the Bill.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman really right on that? Supposing you have no allocation, then the obvious course is for the Central Board to give a purely mathematical distribution of the correct amount of coal to be won among the districts as apportioned, but if you put these words in,
there is a direction that they are to have special regard to these districts which consume in their area the coal they produce there. I should have thought that did give a very specific direction to the Central Board to have regard to the facts in this exceptional case.

Mr. GRAHAM: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously in very great difficulty, as hon. Members opposite are, in importing any element of the area of consumption into this question. We all recognise that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to do that. We are thrown back on the production of the area, and that precisely is what the central body has to take into account, among other things, in making an allocation to that area, what it has been during the past and what it can do within the limits of the Bill, subject always, of course, to disposal of the coal at a remunerative level. That is the correct way in which to view the problem. As regards the South Staffordshire territory, part of the argument has apparently proceeded on the assumption that there is some kind of stable output for consumption in this district. That is not the case. In point of fact, it has varied by as much as 14 per cent. in that limited area within recent times, so that that is an important factor if hon. Members are suggesting that something is to be fixed for this particular district, or, so to speak, guaranteed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) thought, apparently, that these words might disappear. He tried then to relate it to the production in that area, or, at all events, that was the effect of his proposal. I have partly replied to that in the observation I have just made that it is the duty of the central machinery to have regard to the output, which is the only possible basis for a proposal of this kind.

Captain PEAKE: It is nowhere stated in the Bill, as far as I can see, that the Central Council shall take into consideration past results at all. I have no doubt they will do so, but it is nowhere laid down as a principle.

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot say off-hand whether there is a specific reference, but there has never been any doubt about that, and there cannot be under this legislation. The Central Council has to
take the general record of the district into account, and it reaches right down to the individual colliery, which gets its standard tonnage, to which the quota is applied. That standard tonnage, if it is fairly fixed, must have regard to what the colliery has been doing, and so, from the very foundation of the scheme upwards, you get a reference to what has been the state of affairs, subject always to what is the undeniable object of this part of the Bill, the disposal of the coal at a remunerative level, putting such quantities on the market as will bring a proper price. So that these suggestions which have been made, I am afraid, could not possibly meet the situation, and, in any event, it would be quite impossible to try to legislate in this part of the Bill for a specific district. The Amendment in this form, assuming that the words "and provided for" were included, raises the whole Lancashire problem, which, of course, will create a perfectly impossible situation. I fall back on this, that there are the rights of arbitration as among the districts, or as between the individual districts, of which South Staffordshire is one, and the central body, and that all circumstances will be taken into account by the central body in its dealings with the executive body, which is the district organisation. On those grounds I think the case for the Amendment, which would introduce chaos into an important part of the Bill, fails. Accordingly, I must adhere to my Motion that we disagree with the Lords.

5.0 p.m.

Commodore DOUGLAS KING: The President of the Board of Trade has laid great stress on the fact that Staffordshire is divided in the Schedule into three parts, but those are only divisions of convenience, to bring the areas into line with all the other districts set out in the Schedule. The division of Staffordshire into three parts has really no effect whatever on the Amendment. The problem only arises in South Staffordshire because that is the only one of the three districts that can sell the whole of its consumption in its own district. I quite appreciate some of the difficulties that have been mentioned with regard to geographical boundaries, but this is really only an example of the dangers of Government interference. It is only one of the injuries which I consider this Bill is inflicting, not only on
the coal industry itself but on consumers in general. I do not take it merely from the point of view of the coalowners. The Amendment was put down on behalf of the workers. The case which has been put for the consumers is even stronger. They have set up their works and their plant so that they may have coal at the door of their works, and now, under the restrictions which are to be imposed by these provisions, it means that in many cases they will not have coal at their door but will have to go considerable distances for coal, which will have to be conveyed to their works perhaps by means of a long railway journey. The President of the Board of Trade shakes his head, but there is nothing which he has said which can combat that point of view. He admits that under this scheme, whatever the output in South Staffordshire has been up to now, there is to be a quota. If the quota is 75 per cent. or 80 per cent., or whatever it is going to be, it will affect South Staffordshire, and therefore deprive the area of 20 or 25 per cent. of its output. Thus consumers who previously have used the 20 or 25

per cent. which is cut out, will obviously, unless, owing to the increased burden which the Measure is going to place upon them, they are going to reduce the output of their factories and decrease the consumption of their coal, have to bring their coal great distances from other areas. If the Government would give us an undertaking that they would bring in a similar direction to the central council as that suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox), and leave out the words "and providing for," we should be satisfied, in spite of the other issues which this Amendment raises. On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman adopts the attitude that he cannot accept any Amendment, we shall have to take the matter to a Division and support the Lords in the Amendment which they have made.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 112.

Division No. 336.]
AYES.
[5.3 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Compton, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cove, William G.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cowan, D. M.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Daggar, George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Dallas, George
Harbison, T. J.


Alpass, J. H.
Dalton, Hugh
Harbord, A.


Ammon, Charles George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hardie, George D.


Arnott, John
Day, Harry
Harris, Percy A.


Aske, Sir Robert
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Attlee, Clement Richard
Devlin, Joseph
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Ayles, Walter
Dickson, T.
Haycock, A. W.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dukes, C.
Hayday, Arthur


Barnes, Alfred John
Duncan, Charles
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Batey, Joseph
Ede, James Chuter
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Edmunds, J. E.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Bellamy, Albert
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Sedwellty)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Elmley, Viscount
Herriotts, J.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
England, Colonel A.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Benson, G.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)
Hoffman, P. C.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Foot, Isaac
Hollins, A.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Hopkin, Daniel


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Horrabin, J. F.


Bromfield, William
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Brooke, W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Brothers, M.
Gibbins, Joseph
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Isaacs, George


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gill, T. H.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gillett, George M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Buchanan, G.
Gossling, A. G.
Johnston, Thomas


Burgess, F. G.
Gould, F.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Cameron, A. G.
Gray, Milner
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cape, Thomas
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Chater, Daniel
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Church, Major A. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Clarke, J. S.
Groves, Thomas E.
Kennedy, Thomas


Cluse, W. S.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Kinley, J.


Knight, Holford
Muff, G.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Lang, Gordon
Nathan, Major H. L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Naylor, T. E.
Snell, Harry


Lathan, G.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Oldfield, J. R.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sorensen, R.


Lawrence, Susan
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lawson, John James
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Stephen, Campbell


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Leach, W.
Palin, John Henry
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Paling, Wilfrid
Strauss, G. R.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Sullivan, J.


Lees, J.
Perry, S. F.
Sutton, J. E.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Longbottom, A. W.
Pole, Major D. G.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Longden, F.
Price, M. P.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lowth, Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.
Tillett, Ben


Lunn, William
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Tinker, John Joseph


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Tout, W. J.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Richards, R.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Turner, B.


McElwee, A.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Vaughan, D. J.


McEntee, V. L.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Viant, S. P.


MacLaren, Andrew
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Walkden, A. G.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Rowson, Guy
Wallace, H. W.


McShane, John James
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wallhead, Richard C.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Mansfield, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watkins, F. C.


March, S.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Marcus, M.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Markham, S. F.
Sanders, W. S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Marley, J.
Sandham, E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Mathers, George
Sawyer, G. F.
West, F. R.


Matters, L. W.
Scott, James
Westwood, Joseph


Maxton, James
Scrymgeour, E.
White, H. G.


Melville, Sir James
Scurr, John
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Messer, Fred
Sexton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Middleton, G.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Millar, J. D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mills, J. E.
Shield, George William
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Montague, Frederick
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Morley, Ralph
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Simmons, C. J.
Wise, E. F.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Morrison Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinkinson, George



Mort, D. L.
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moses, J. J. H.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. William Whiteley.


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Albery, Irving James
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Astor, Viscountess
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Atkinson, C.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Long, Major Eric


Balniel, Lord
Eden, Captain Anthony
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Berry, Sir George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, R. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Boyce, H. L.
Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
O'Connor, T. J.


Buchan, John
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Carver, Major W. H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Purbrick, R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsbotham, H.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hartington, Marquess of
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, John R.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Copt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Christie, J. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Savery, S. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Simms, Major-General J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hurd, Percy A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Colville, Major D. J.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.




Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wells, Sydney R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Todd, Capt. A. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Turton, Robert Hugh
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Withers, Sir John James
Sir George Bowyer.


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 38, at the end, insert:
(c) for the district allocation being determined at such times and for such periods as the council think fit, so however that the council shall be required to amend the allocation during any such period if they are satisfied upon the representation of the executive board for the district that it is necessary to do so in order to meet an increased demand for coal or any class of coal;

Read a Second time.

Mr. EVANS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 3, after the word "council," to insert:
in fixing the allocation shall have regard to the amount and class of coal produced in each district, with a view to securing that the production, supply, and sale of each class of coal shall not be hampered or restricted, and the council.
We are now about to consider a new paragraph to Sub-section (2) of the Clause which was introduced and inserted in the Bill in another place. One of the objects, I understand, was to increase the elasticity of the Central Council in making provision far allocations to individual districts. I am seeking by the words which I wish to introduce into this Amendment to increase that elasticity a little further in the interests of the export trade. I make no apology for referring to the export trade, because in all parts of the House it will be agreed that the export trade is one of the greatest assets of our country. In view of the new paragraph (c), if there were a sudden demand for a much greater amount of export coal than might be in existence at any particular moment, it would be open to the Central Committee to apply a special quota to export coal in order to meet that emergency, but subject to a proviso that the special quota which might be allowed in an emergency would be limited, the total amount of which should not exceed the district allocation. That proviso might render the whole of this Clause nugatory in the districts in regard to export coal. There might come a sudden demand in a particular district based upon orders
from abroad. That district may apply for a special quota, and then the Central Council would be faced with this position, that they would like to give that district a special quota but they would have to say: "We cannot do it, because if we do we should be increasing the total of the district allocation." That would be a lamentable event. What I am asking the Government to do by the insertion of my Amendment to the Lords Amendment, is to give the Central Council such powers that, in the event of a contingency of that sort arising, it would be possible for the Council to give that particular district a special quota, which would not be limited by the district quota previously allocated, which would enable the district to carry out the orders which it had received.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I bad already anticipated the reply on this proposal in the reply which I gave to a previous Amendment, but the facts can be simply stated. The Amendment moved in another place covers the important point which my hon. Friend has in mind. The House knows that there is a standard tonnage in each colliery district, and a quota is applied within that district to the standard tonnage of each colliery, and under the Bill any class of coal, it may be export coal or coal for the iron and steel industry or for any other special class of coal, can have a 100 per cent. quota. It is true, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that asuming there was a sudden demand for increased quantities of, say, export coal, that quota could be applied, subject always to the overriding district allocation. The Amendment which was proposed in another place provides
for the district allocation being determined at such times and for such periods as the council think fit, so however that the council shall be required to amend the allocation during any such period if they are satisfied upon the representation of the executive board for the district that it is
necessary to do so in order to meet an increased demand for coal or any class of coal;
The effect of the Lords Amendment is to take away the overriding condition of the district allocation and to give power for its being exceeded for the time being, while the exceptional demand lasts. Accordingly, my hon. Friend will see that his case is completely covered, and on that ground it may not be necessary for him to press the Amendment to the Lords Amendment. I propose to ask the House to agree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. EVANS: If my right hon. Friend is correct in his statement, and I have no reason to doubt it, when he says that the Amendment introduced in another place takes away the overriding condition from the district allocation, my case is met, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 5, line 22, agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision of district scheme.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 15, after the word "developed," insert
or is being developed for economic working.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The words that have been added in another place are supplementary to an Amendment that was introduced, either during the Committee or the Report stage in this House, from the Liberal benches. I think the position is covered without these words, but I do not object to them.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say precisely what is the reason for putting in these words? I cannot imagine that any coal mine could be developed except for economic purposes, and it would seem that these words are superfluous, unless the right hon. Gentleman can discover some form of mine which is not developed for economic purposes. If these words are
to be inserted now, why were they omitted from the original Bill? I do not think that their insertion will have any effect upon the development of the coal industry one way or the other, but we ought to know the meaning of the Amendment and to be clear that it does not extend something to one part of the coal industry and not to another.

Mr. GRAHAM: There is no mystery about this small Amendment. In the discussion on the fixing of standard tonnage in another place, I understand that a Noble Lord suggested the insertion of the words:
or should be developed for economic working.
It was plain that that was very largely a matter of opinion, and, after further debate, the words:
or is being developed for economic working
were suggested. Since that must inevitably be taken into account in fixing the standard tonnage, there is no objection to inserting these words in the Clause. I see no danger from their insertion but I do not depart from the view that I think it is inherent in the Clause without this condition.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 44, at the end, insert:
Provided that in determining the quota with respect to a coal mine which is owned or controlled by a manufacturing or industrial company or undertaking the coal which is supplied, whether as coal or coke by that coal mine to that company or undertaking for consumption in the works of that company or undertaking shall not be included in either the standard tonnage or quota of that mine.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment raises a rather larger proposition, and I will give the Government view as briefly and clearly as possible. This deals with the case of the mixed undertakings, which was debated at length during the Committee stage and also to some extent on the Report stage of the Bill. The proposal is that there should be taken outside of the quota regulations any mine which is owned by, say, an iron and steel undertaking, or which is ancillary to any other
form of business. That raises the whole question of the vertical trust in the sense of iron and steel coming down through coal, or any other raw material on which it depends, and, on the other side, the horizontal trust, or organisation in the coal industry itself. There can be no doubt that from some points of view, taking the case of the vertical trust and assuming that it is in the industrial interests of this country that that form of organisation should be encouraged, there is something that might be said for this Amendment, but the moment we pause to consider what it would involve for the coal industry, I think we must agree that the difficulties are practically insoluble. Observe what would happen. There are certain collieries which are linked up with iron and steel or with other forms of business. If this Amendment were adopted all those collieries, whatever the number, whatever the aggregate output, would be taken, at a stroke, outside the regulations of the marketing scheme under Part I of the Bill. That would be the first effect.
That raises a very great difficulty as between colliery and colliery, because those collieries which were not linked up to iron and steel businesses or which were what I might call pure mines, would be subject to the regulations regarding output whereas those collieries which were supplying iron and steel or any other undertaking would not be subject to any regulations about output. When we pass to the iron and steel industry itself, and consider the position as between iron and steel undertakings we observe that the iron and steel undertaking which had attached to it an unregulated colliery as regards output would be in a much better position than other iron and steel undertakings which were not linked up to collieries, and which had to purchase their supplies of coal in the regulated market under the terms of Part I of the Bill. This matter was discussed at great length in Committee and on Report, and hon. Members opposite impressed upon me the view that there was some kind of hardship in this particular legislation. To this day I have been unable to see it.
The only possible basis for dealing with collieries under this Bill is to deal with them on uniform lines as collieries, and not to look to the destination of the
coal, at all events, in this part of the problem of regulation of output, always remembering that we have other ways of dealing with the regulation of that output as applied to the particular class of demand, whether it is for iron or steel or whatever it may be. If there is a case for special consideration of any class such as iron and steel, they may have under district schemes an allocation of 100 per cent. to the collieries affected.
That is the way to deal with a problem of that kind. The way in which we must not deal with it, unless we want to lead to absolute confusion, is to deal with it on the lines of the Lords' Amendment. Since the Committee stage I have made further inquiries into this matter and there is not the least doubt and this is borne out by the iron and steel industry on the one hand and by the colliery industry on the other, that if this Amendment was accepted it would be comparatively easy to get a considerable number of collieries to link up not under the terms of a vertical amalgamation but under the terms of a mere paper arrangement which would remove altogether any regulation of their output for the purposes of this Bill. The result of that would be that since they were taken outside the regulations a diminished amount must be allocated to other pure mines and the cost to these mines would be increased. They would be placed at a perfectly unfair disadvantage. I am reinforced in these views and in my resistance to this Amendment by a telegram which has just reached me from an area which is immediately and powerfully affected by the proposals.
The coalowners of the county of Durham decided by a large majority against the principle of excluding from the standard tonnage and from the operation of the quota the output of composite undertakings. The owners concerned have at a special meeting instructed me to protest against the acceptance of any Amendment excluding the output of the composite undertakings from the standard tonnage and quota.
That is the latest declaration of a representative body of owners in a peculiarly difficult part of the country, one which is more largely affected, as far as I know, by this proposal than any other, and from men who look at the question not only from the standpoint of coal. Many of these owners have great interests in iron and steel undertakings in this district, yet they have decided by this large majority in the terms of the telegram I
have just read. For these reasons I must adhere to the view which was endorsed by the House in Committee, and I ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We are presented with a position of some difficulty by this Amendment. While the Amendment may go perhaps a little too far, the President of the Board of Trade does not go far enough. The House will not be impressed by the argument that no consideration should be given to iron and steel firms which have bought colliery undertakings in the past, because that will be treating them with more consideration than those iron and steel undertakings which have no colliery of their own, because iron and steel undertakings with subsidiary collieries of their own will be able to get coal and use it at the cost of getting it, whereas other undertakings will have to buy in the open market, and, after this Bill, at a higher price than hitherto. That is not a reasonable argument. Why are iron and steel undertakings which have had the foresight to acquire a coal mine as a subsidiary business, and for the purposes of their undertakings, be deprived of that advantage? At one time the possession of such a colliery gave them a distinct advantage. It was a better proposition in the past than it is to-day, or will be under this Bill. They bought these coal mines not as a speculative undertaking but in order to have a steady supply of coal at a convenient distance from their blast furnaces and mills. That was a very proper and far-sighted thing to do.
In recent years, when the price of coal has been low, these mines have been a liability rather than an asset. They could have gone into the open market and bought coal at a cheaper rate than mining it in their own coal mines, but they still carried on the coal mines although obtaining no advantage from them. They kept these mines on in order that they would be available for their own industrial purposes when the price of coal should rise. Why should they be damnified and be deprived of an insurance for which they have paid a premium in the past? There is no reason why they should not be allowed to have the full benefit of such mines for the purposes of their iron and steel works. Every single iron and steel works, or other industrial undertaking,
which possesses a coal mine subsidiary to itself ought to be able to draw from that coal mine for its own industrial purposes the full amount it requires for those purposes. At present there is no guarantee that it can do so. You may have a factory, or other works, which has a coal mine which, when it is working to 90 per cent. capacity, produces exactly the amount of coal the undertaking requires. With the reorganisation of our iron and steel works, which we all want to see and which is very rapidly coming about, three or four isolated steel works may be amalgamated. Each of them may own a colliery but does not draw the full output of the colliery. When these steel works are amalgamated and the production is concentrated in one or two units, it may be very desirable for that reorganised unit to draw 100 per cent. output from a convenient pit which is close to that concentrated undertaking.
What will be the position under this Bill? It will have its output quota-ed at 80 per cent. or 75 per cent. That amalgamated undertaking may wish to take from the colliery not 75 per cent. of the output but 100 per cent., not for sale in the open market but simply and solely for the purposes of its own industrial operations. Why in that case should that industrial undertaking be told that it can only produce up to 75 per cent. and that it must go into the open market and buy the other 25 per cent. of its requirements? You are hitting it twice over. You are increasing the costs of production on the 75 per cent. output because, obviously, it can run its colliery cheaper on an output of 100 per cent. You increase the cost per ton of the coal which it gets from its own coal mine and you send it into the market to buy the other 25 per cent. at a higher price than it costs to get its own coal, in a much less convenient way because there will be higher transport charges. That is very unreasonable.
I should like to see an Amendment providing that any industrial undertaking shall be allowed to win the full amount of its requirements whether it is in excess of its quota or not. When you get beyond that and you have a subsidiary coal mine not working for the iron and steel undertaking but going into the open market and selling coal as a colliery then I agree that it should be quota-ed on the amount it sells in the
open market. For that reason I think the Amendment perhaps goes too far. It covers not only the case of an industrial concern wishing to use 100 per cent. of its output but it also says that where a coal mine is owned by an industrial concern it shall get and use as much as it wants for its own purposes and that upon the balance it should enjoy a privileged position, there is no quota upon what it produces and the quota will only operate on the balance it desires to sell. That is giving them an undue advantage, but if I have to choose between penalising an industrial undertaking which has a subsidiary colliery or giving it a slight advantage as a coal seller in the open market I should plump for giving it an advantage in the open market, because at all costs you want to preserve the position it has secured for itself by acquiring this subsidiary undertaking.
What I think would meet the general fairness of the situation, and what I hope the President of the Board of Trade will undertake if the Amendment is passed, is that it should be amended in another place into a form which will enable a company to work the full amount of coal they want for their own industrial requirements free of quota but that in other respects they should come under the scheme. Apply the quota and the standard tonnage but, having done that, if any industrial undertaking wishes to get from a coal mine it owns more than its quota that it should be free to work and use that coal without any breach of the regulations. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking to introduce something like that into the scheme we could part with this Amendment on the understanding that it would be amended in this way. But if he forces us into the position of having to stand or fall by this Amendment, and if this is the only way in which we can give an industrial undertaking the right to work and use the coal it wins for its own purposes, I shall support the Amendment. This Bill is largely built up on the Five-Counties scheme. Is it not the fact that in that scheme there is a provision very similar to this, or similar to the proposal I have now made? If there is special consideration given in the Five-Counties scheme to coal mines owned by industrial undertakings then I think we certainly
ought not to be less generous to these industrial undertakings.

Major NATHAN: There seems to be great force in the contention to which the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken addressed himself, namely, that the form of words of the Lords Amendment is rather too wide to meet the necessities of the case. I would remind the House that when this matter was being discussed in Committee I moved an Amendment which was supported by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and by his party, and which gave a far more limited interpretation to the object in view. I ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider that form of words, which then met with the approval not merely of the Conservative Opposition but also of a number on the Liberal benches and attracted to itself the strong support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). The real matter of controversy that arises in connection with this Amendment is whether in a disorganised industry—which has however efficiently organised itself in certain great industries, comprising coal mines, along vertical lines—the mixed undertaking is to be allowed to live when the technique of the horizontal trusts is applied to the industry as a whole.
The Bill as it stands and the speech of my right hon. Friend are really an attack upon the whole system of combination in this country known as the vertical trust, in so far as a mine is included in a mixed undertaking. I am not at all sure but that just as by way of horizontal trusts great hopes lie for the economic reconstruction of our industrial system, so similarly there is a very valuable and important part to be played by vertical trusts. The problem is so to arrange things that they combine their assistance to economic reconstruction side by side. The Miners' Federation is quite unambiguous as to its support of the vertical combination in the coal industry. The President of the Board of Trade will be familiar with the evidence given before the Royal Commission on behalf of the Miners' Federation. He will allow me to draw his attention to a quotation on page 66 of the Royal Commission's Report, from the
Memorandum submitted by Messrs. Davies and Hall on behalf of the Miners' Federation. They say:
Modern development of industry is making it more and more impossible to treat coal mining as something completely separate and with only accidental connections with other industries. It appears that the typical coal mining concern is becoming more and more a complex unit. In some cases it is becoming a unit which so far transcends ordinary industrial divisions that it can only be described as a heavy industry unit. This does not apply to all the pits, it is true.
Then they say:
But in measuring an industry the workmen feel that it is the modern and most developed form of the industry which must be taken as the type.
I am afraid that the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment may operate as a handicap in the development of that form of industry to which the Miners' Federation has expressed itself as attaching so much importance. The Royal Commission, when considering this Memorandum and the Whole question of nationalisation, made some comments which are germane to the matter under discussion. I would refer to a passage on page 67 of the Commission's Report. They point out that in the event of nationalisation—and the same results will follow from the adoption of a horizontal trust without discrimination throughout the industry—integrations that have already been effected would in fact have to be broken up. Then they go on to say:
The very sections of the industry which already approach the standards that are likely to prevail in the future, would be the most injured. Existing combinations would be disintegrated, and a serious obstacle would be raised against further integrations.
One of the main needs of industry in this country at the present moment is that there should be further integrations. In the creation of combinations and trusts, vertical as well as horizontal, lies perhaps the best hope of industrial recovery. Mines are owned by a vast variety of mixed undertakings. I need merely instance iron and steel, blast furnaces, glass manufacturers, gas companies, engineers, chemical manufacturers and all the rest of them—the real heavy industries of this country. It would be a great mistake to believe that these are unimportant in relation to their consumption of coal. I believe it has been
estimated that one blast furnace alone is capable of consuming as much coal as a town of 100,000 inhabitants—a very striking fact. Then there is the question of special coal required for special purposes by special industries, for which no provision at all will be made were it not for an Amendment along the lines of that suggested.
It often happens that some great industrial concern may buy a colliery because it produces a peculiar type of coal which is essential for the purpose of its own manufactures. It wishes, against all the vicissitudes of price and the difficulties of the market, to be secure in its supply of coal. Of that security it would be robbed were the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade adopted, for he has made it quite clear that the whole purpose of the quota scheme is to restrict supplies, and while I support the quota system in relation to the industry as a whole, I certainly find myself completely unable to do so in the case of a mine forming part of a mixed industry. My right hon. Friend, in addressing the House on 11th March, made certain replies to the arguments advanced by those on this side of the House, and it may be convenient, in order to clear up the situation, to direct attention to those arguments. I am not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last did not refer to the first of the arguments.
The President of the Board of Trade suggested that this Amendment would make a manifest and unfair distinction between individual pits. I shall return to that argument in a moment. The second argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman was, he said, more impressive from some points of view, and it was the effect on the iron and steel industry itself. I think I heard him use that argument again to-day, when he suggested that an iron and steel plant which happened to have a colliery undertaking would be at an advantage, because its coal supply would not be regulated at all under the terms of this Amendment, whereas—I would emphasise these words:
all the other iron and steel undertakings of the country which happened not to be tied to a colliery would have to depend on regulated coal, subject to a quota and presumably able to command rather better prices.
Then he used the argument about the roping in of some colliery undertaking for the purpose of bringing it within the total exemption which would be applied if the Amendment were carried.
This is a matter of grave importance, and very briefly I will examine the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. The first argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that this proposal makes a manifestly unfair distinction. I do not follow it. The mine to which we are referring, the mixed mine, which I prefer to call a captive mine, does not compete in the least with the pit that disposes of its coal in the open market. It uses, under the suggestion which has been made in modification of the form of the Amendment, the whole of the permitted coal for its own purposes. There would be no competition. It would not come into the open market and therefore there would be no question of unfairness. It would not come into the open market in so far as they use the coal for their own purposes. In so far as they do not use it for their own purposes by all means let them be subject to the quota.
6.0 p.m.
The second argument was that advanced by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to ordinary iron and steel companies not possessing mines of their own and having to rely on regulated coal at a better price. There, in terms, the right hon. Gentleman lets the cat out of the bag. He desires that those mines, those industries which at present are able to control their own supply without any restriction, should have the additional burden put upon them of having to pay the higher price. If the scheme means that the dear market coal, which burdens all consumers, is to be forced upon the mixed undertaking, then you are depriving the mixed undertakings of that which they have had the foresight to obtain for themselves—the vital interest of independence of the market and of market fluctuations. It was in order to obtain security and relief from the uncertainty of these fluctuations, in order to be able to see a little ahead and to make plans accordingly, that so many industries embarked on the enterprise of coal mining as ancillary to their main undertaking and bought mines long before any scheme of quotas or prices was thought of in this House or outside. To force, as the right hon. Gentleman proposes, mixed
undertakings to stop their own pits one day a week or it may be more, in order to buy a portion of their requirements from outside, may very well result in coke ovens, blast furnaces, steel mills and by-product plants having to shut down—a very sorry result from a Bill which in many of its aspects must be of enduring benefit to the coal mining industry. Of course, I need scarcely point out that any undertaking which can absorb the whole capacity of a mine is at perfect liberty to buy one. Then with regard to the suggestion about roping in collieries so as to evade the purpose and intention of the Bill, that suggestion can only be relevant if it is proposed to exclude from the quota the whole output of a captive pit and of course that is not so. I do not know if my right hon. Friend bears in mind the amount of coal to which this Amendment applies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen in Appendix 18, Table 9, attached to the Royal Commission's report makes it clear that in 1925, out of 221,000,000 tons of coal sold by associated and other colliery undertakings only 20,350,673 tons were sold to the trading and industrial concerns which control them. Even if this Amendment were passed, nine-tenths of the coal would still be subject to this scheme. I suggest that it is essential that mixed undertakings which have shown the foresight and the courage to invest their money in coal mines at a time of great depression and anxiety and without any foreknowledge of a Bill of this kind, should be allowed to do what they like with their own coal. This Bill, without the Amendment, means that some of these great industries, with enormous potentialities if they are allowed to continue as vertical combines, with every part neatly adjusted to meet the requirements of every other part, will be hamstrung by a form of restriction which, in my judgment, is justifiable only as a desperate remedy for open competition in the raw coal sales market and is quite inapplicable to those vertical combines which exist in such great numbers and which are of such great importance in many of our industrial areas.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I regard this Amendment as being perhaps the most important of all those with which we have to deal. It would be a very detrimental and reactionary thing, from the point of view
of the reconstruction of industry, if the President of the Board of Trade were to persist in his refusal of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman and other Members of the Government have frequently emphasised the fact that the rationalisation of industry is desirable and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that in the heavy industries, particularly such industries as iron and steel, we are about 10 years behind our most formidable competitors in the United States and Germany as regards actual industrial organisation. He knows also that vertical rationalisation is, in many cases, just as desirable and necessary as horizontal rationalisation, particularly in this country. This country is perhaps better situated for rationalisation than any other country, because we have certain districts with waterways and coalfields all together, admirably suited to that form of organisation which can work from the raw material to the finished article and export the finished article from that same district. Vertical rationalisation has made practically no headway or at any rate very little headway in this country in the last seven or eight years and our organisation is not comparable with the organisation in the Ruhr district, to which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman once again to give his particular attention.
If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept this Amendment, what will be the result? It is vital, if we are to regain our export markets in the heavy industries that our factories, our mills and our mines should work as far as possible at 100 per cent. capacity and I have heard the right hon. Gentleman himself say so, over and over again. If the Amendment be not accepted, it is more than likely that any concern which has achieved a measure of vertical rationalisation in so far as it owns its own coal mine, will have such a quota that the output of the mine will be cut down. The mine will then be compelled to work at 75 or 80 per cent. of its capacity, instead of 100 per cent. That is bound to increase the cast of production and you get the still more fantastic result that in many cases these firms will be compelled to make up their total requirement of coal from other sources, while their own mines which they have gone to so much trouble to develop as part of a general industry covering the whole operation from the
raw material to the finished article, are not working up to their full productive capacity. I believe if the right hon. Gentleman persists in his present attitude towards this Amendment, he will do a bad day's work for the reconstruction and rationalisation of our heavy industries.

Mr. STRACHEY: The last two speeches in support of this Amendment resolved themselves into pleas for vertical rationalisation. I cannot feel much sympathy for that point of view, nor can I endorse the suggestion of the last speaker that vertical rationalisation is virtually untried in this country. I should say that it is the one form of rationalisation which has been tried in this country. We have had, in our heavy industries, a number of organisations comprising miscellaneous pits and steel works and by-product works of all sorts, and I do not think that the results of those miscellaneous and rather heterogeneous organisations have been at all encouraging.
Surely, in this connection we ought to note the last example of rationalisation in this country—the first really scientific effort at rationalisation, planned in advance, or at any rate, the most scientific effort of that kind which we have had. I refer to the recent scheme proposed in Lancashire in regard to iron and steel works on the one hand, and coal pits on the other. In that case, exactly the reverse tendency has been put into force. These large mixed organisations have been sorted out into two horizontally rationalised organisations. There is a big steel corporation and a big coal corporation. There will be, of course, some connection between the two new organisations, but what has really been done has been to take a series of what were vertical organisations and put them all together, and then to sort out the coal concerns from the steel concerns and make two horizontally organised corporations. That is very strong evidence that the present tendency in rationalisation is towards horizontal organisation of that sort and the objections which have been raised to this Bill have no force whatever if they are applied to organisations of that sort. This Bill is in line with that tendency and the Amendment is away from that tendency.
I think that these coal organisations such as the new organisation which is being formed around the Wigan coal companies, and the new organisation in South Wales—organisations owning a large number of coal pits—will not be in the least hampered by the operation of a Bill of this kind. Who supposes that these organisations, so very powerful in their own districts, are going to have insufficient quotas allotted to them? They are perfectly well able to look after themselves and to see that they get a quota which will permit them to raise all the coal which they need to raise and which they can market properly. I do not think we need have the least fear that they will be "put upon" as a result of the Bill. They will be linked in some cases, of course, to the large steel organisations which are being formed, but the mere fact that there is some link of that kind, that their first object is steel, does not mean that the organisation will be interfered with in the least by the operation of this Bill. The Bill is in line with horizontal organisations of that sort, and I cannot see that they can be interfered with under this proposal. For those reasons I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will resist the Amendment.

Major COLVILLE: I entirely disagree with the views of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Strachey) on the subject of rationalisation, but I do not propose to enter into that discussion. I wish to put certain facts before the House. Certain industries in this country are at the present time struggling for their very existence. There are certain industries in which unemployment has been increasing rapidly. I have searched the Bill from beginning to end and I can find no safeguard which assures me that those hard-hit industries which have had the foresight to secure coal for the purposes of their manufacture will not be injured by the artificial raising of price which will be brought about by the quota system. The President of the Board of Trade may say that those who are aggrieved have the ordinary machinery for bringing for ward their complaints and that they may through that machinery secure 100 per cent. allocation. They can only do so, however, if they have majorities in their own districts, and in very few districts,
if any, will the manufacturers to whom I refer who own coal mines and use the coal for their manufacturing purposes have majorities enabling them to secure 100 per cent. allocation.
I most earnestly urge upon the Government that they should consider what they are doing. I would sound a note of warning. In the iron and steel trade unemployment is rife. No less than 30 per cent. of the insured workpeople in the steel trade are unemployed—a greater percentage than the unemployed in the mining industry—and that figure compares with 26 per cent. a month ago and 18 per cent. a year ago. That trade is bound to be affected by the Bill. I am not tied to the words of the Amendment inserted in another place and the effect which we wish to bring about is more in line with the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) moved when the Bill was previously before us, an Amendment which was supported by Members on this side of the House because it was in accord with a proposal which we ourselves had drafted. I wish to secure that at any rate, the owners of these mines may be able to work the mines to their full capacity for the coal which they require for their own manufacture.
This matter does not affect iron and steel alone. Its effects will be spread over a wide range of industries, including brickmaking, glass manufacture, potteries, shale oil manufacture and others. In the case of shale oil there are pits which are worked entirely for the production of coal to heat the retorts. If those pits are quota-ed, the cost of production in that industry will go up, more unemployed will be added to the register. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has not said a single word in defence of the principle of applying a quota to these undertakings. He has defended his Bill, but that is a very different thing. He has said the Bill must apply to all, but he has never defended the proposition that he is making to apply a quota to these undertakings, artificially increase their costs, and thus make them less able to compete in the markets of the world. Is he considering only his Bill, or the industry of the country?

Mr. SULLIVAN: The hon. Member for Eastern Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said the steel trade in this country was 10 years behind the Ruhr. If that does not set hon. Members opposite thinking, nothing will. That was not said by somebody on this side, but they had that from one of their own friends, and they had better try and put their house in order. We want a regulation of the coal trade in order to protect the employers as much as the men, and I commend this to hon. Members opposite, that I do not know any concern that produces coal only for its own works. The hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian and Peebles (Major Colville) is connected with a firm that has coal mines, steel works and shipbuilding works, and ever since they went into the coal trade the miners have not been going 75 per cent., but have been going less than 50 per cent. Just now numbers of those men are idle, and if the steel works are suffering, it is not for lack of coal, because we could produce mountains of coal. We have no right to be carrying other trades on our backs when they have got into a bad state of inefficiency, and I hope the House will support the President of the Board of Trade in the attitude which he has taken towards this Amendment.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: The President of the Board of Trade read out a telegram from the Durham owners, and I have no doubt that it was accurate, but I do know that the owners and those connected with steel works in Durham have been fighting this question for some time, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that that telegram represents the owners of steel works as well as coalowners. I can assure him, of my own knowledge, that that cannot be the case. Personally, knowing some of the practical facts of the matter, I am very much in sympathy with the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken. I spoke before, particularly on the question of Durham, and I know very well that, while we may talk about vertical and horizontal combinations, these are practical difficulties between mine and mine.

I do not think the matter is in a satisfactory state, and I am sure we have to consider some suggestion such as that, made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister), but it is the practical difficulty between mine and mine which I think makes it impossible to put the matter right all at once.

All steel companies sell a great deal of coal in the open market, and if they have no quota for coal consumed in their steel works, which amounts to about 75 per cent. of their production, and the other 25 per cent. has a quota, they will work on a quota which is much more favourable than the quota of an ordinary coal mine; and, from figures given to me, that means that they will be able to sell coal 1s. cheaper than a pure coal mine. That is very nice for miners in these steel works, and it means that they will have more full time in their mines, but their fellow miners in pure mines will have more short time, which does not seem fair. He must also not forget that steel works sell coke, and this competes with coal, so that under this Amendment the steel works would get it both ways.

There is another point about this Amendment which, if it were carried out to the full, would be rather important. Any industry could then acquire a coal mine, and could therefore claim the benefit. I have always understood that one of the objects of this Bill was to get a higher price out of the gas industry, but there is nothing in this Amendment to prevent a gas company purchasing a coal mine, and, therefore, instead of paying a higher price, it would pay a lower price. On those grounds, I think we must seriously consider whether this Amendment is suitable, and whether some suggestion like that of my right hon. Friend below me would not be better.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 167.

Division No. 337.]
AYES.
[6.21 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Ammon, Charles George
Barnes, Alfred John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Arnott, John
Batey, Joseph


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Attlee, Clement Richard
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Ayles, Walter
Bellamy, Albert


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood


Alpass, J. H.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Johnston, Thomas
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Birkett, W. Norman
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ritson, J.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Romeril, H. G.


Bowen, J. W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Rowson, Guy


Bromfield, William
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brooke, W.
Kennedy, Thomas
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Brothers, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kinley, J.
Sawyer, G. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Knight, Holford
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Lang, Gordon
Scurr, John


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sexton, James


Burgess, F. G.
Lathan, G.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Shield, George William


Cameron, A. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Shillaker, J. F.


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Shinwell, E.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Charieton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Chater, Daniel
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sinkinson, George


Church, Major A. G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sitch, Charles H.


Clarke, J. S.
Lees, J.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Cluse, W. S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Compton, Joseph
Longden, F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cove, William G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Daggar, George
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dallas, George
Lunn, William
Snell, Harry


Dalton, Hugh
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Day, Harry
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sorensen, R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McElwee, A.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Devlin, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Dickson, T.
McKinlay, A.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dukes, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Duncan, Charles
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Strauss, G. R.


Ede, James Chuter
McShane, John James
Sullivan, J.


Edge, Sir William
Malong, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sutton, J. E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Mansfield, W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
March, S.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marcus, M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gibbins, Joseph
Markham, S. F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Marley, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gill, T. H.
Mathers, George
Tillett, Ben


Gillett, George M.
Matters, L. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gossling, A. G.
Maxton, James
Tout, W. J.


Gould, F.
Melville, Sir James
Townend, A. E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Messer, Fred
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Middleton, G.
Turner, B.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mills, J. E.
Vaughan, D. J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morley, Ralph
Walkden, A. G.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Wallace, H. W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mort, D. L.
Watkins, F. C.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Moses, J. J. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Harbison, T. J.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wellock, Wilfred


Harbord, A.
Muff, G.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hardie, George D.
Muggeridge, H. T.
West, F. R.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, Joseph


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel Baker, P. J.
White, H. G.


Haycock, A. W.
Oldfield, J. R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palin, John Henry.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Herriotts, J.
Perry, S. F.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hoffman, P. C.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hollins, A.
Pole, Major D. G.
Wise, E. F.


Hopkin, Daniel
Potts, John S.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Horrabin, J. F.
Price, M. P.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Quibell, D. J. K.



Isaacs, George
Richards, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)


Albery, Irving James
Allen, W. C. D. (Belfast, W.)
Astor, Viscountess


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Atkinson, C.




Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Balniel, Lord
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beaumont, M. W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Purbrick, R.


Berry, Sir George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remer, John R.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Boothby, R. J. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Salmon, Major I.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Boyce, H. L.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bracken, B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Buchan, John
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Savery, S. S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Butler, R. A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smithers, Waldron


Carver, Major W. H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chapman, Sir S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Knox, Sir Alfred
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Colville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cowan, D. M.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Long, Major Eric
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Warrender, Sir Victor


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mond, Hon. Henry
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Withers, Sir John James


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


England, Colonel A.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)



Ferguson, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Ford, Sir P. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
George Penny.


Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 7, line 1, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 15, after the word "supplied," insert "by owners of coal mines in the district."

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment relates to the Clause dealing with the fixing of prices; it would naturally apply to coal supplied by owners, but it makes it perfectly plain.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 9, line 1, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
We now come to a question which, I am afraid, is more controversial than the two or three drafting Amendments of which the House has just approved. We have had considerable debate on this subject both in Committee and on Report, and perhaps a brief statement only is necessary. After debate in another place, the provision for a permissive district levy was deleted. The position is therefore, that the House of Commons has deleted the central levy, and, as the Bill now stands, the district levy is also excluded. The central levy on national lines is beyond further consideration, but I now move this Motion for what, I am satisfied, are very strong reasons. From the very beginning, there has been, I think, a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to this levy. May I point out that in any respect it is
on a clearly permissive basis, and that the object of the levy is to raise, in relation to the tonnage raised in the district, resources which will facilitate the supply and the sale of any class of coal.
No doubt the first object is to facilitate the export of coal, but hon. Members must bear in mind that the levy also applies to any other class of coal, and might in fact be used to facilitate the sale of coal to iron and steel undertakings, or to any other class of demand which was needing a special or easier price in the disposal of the commodity. When we first discussed this, I took the view that it is practically a device for providing a variation in price or a differential price, that is, to give certain terms to certain classes of demand, a device to be used, when there was a very strong case for it, as the whole situation had been weighed up by the executive board comprised of the owners in that area, and subject to all the safeguards as regards consumers and so on which come in this Bill. I have been unable to agree that it is a form of protection, as some hon. Members have said; it is simply a measure for providing that differential price.
It may be argued that there is no difference in principle between the central or national levy and this district levy which we propose to reinsert in the Bill. In a certain broad sense that is perfectly true, but the scope of the two proposals is very different, and the way in which a device of this kind on a district basis would operate is of the greatest importance for certain parts of the country. I can illustrate that with the case of Scotland. There you have the Lanarkshire coalfield on the one side supplying very largely the inland market, and the Fifeshire coalfield on the other side, which supplies one-third of the output in Scotland, a great deal of which goes to the export trade. It is one of the admitted objects of this Bill that an economic or remunerative price for coal should be obtained, and if under the regulations in one district—and Scotland is one district for the purposes of this Bill—a better price is received for the inland coal, that raises the ascertainment in Scotland as a whole, and certain advantages follow to the owners on the one side and to the miners on the other,
and a higher rate of remuneration would be available as progress was made on those lines.
It is perfectly plain that there would at once grow up a manifest discrepancy between the Lanarkshire coalfield on the one side, supplying very largely the inland demand for which that better price had been obtained, and the Fifeshire coalfield on the other side, in their export trade, in which there might be more difficulty in obtaining a due price. There would very soon be an anomaly in those two parts of the coalfield in the Scotland, which form one wages ascertainment district. Certain effects would be almost certain to follow from that state of affairs. It has never been disputed in this House that the Scottish owners have been very much opposed to the marketing plans under this Bill, but I have every reason to hope that, after the Bill becomes law—and the House will remember that in this part of the legislation the only substantial Lords Amendments relate to what we are now discussing, the whole of the rest of the marketing schemes being left practically intact—I have every reason to hope that the Scottish owners will come into line, and that a scheme will be put up for Scotland rather than a scheme imposed on Scotland by the Board of Trade. While we would be compelled to take that step as a last resort, it would be better to have the industry with us if possible, and that certainly would be the whole trend of my efforts at the Board of Trade.
It seems doubly certain that unless this district levy can be retained in the legislation, there is great doubt whether a scheme could be put forward by the owners in Scotland, because they attach great importance to this levy, and they have conveyed their view to hon. Members in all parts of the House. That might be one result. The other possible result is that it might have the effect of dividing Scotland into two wages ascertainment districts. In that case, we have to add one more district to the list of districts in the First Schedule to the Bill. We have made plain through all these debates that, in our view, there is already too large a number of districts for the purposes of this legislation. The First Schedule or the Second Schedule, or the two Schedules together, provide for the
amalgamation of these districts, and I would like to see them reduced at the earliest possible moment to a much smaller number, because that will make for efficiency in the industry. I also think that it will facilitate the relationship between the central machinery on the one side and the administrative machinery on the other. I must therefore set my face against any proposal that tends to increase the danger of Scotland or any other district in a similar position being divided into two wages ascertainment districts, and so adding to the kind of difficulty which I have described.
It may be argued also that if all this is permissive, why is it necessary to include it in the legislation? Hon. Members may suggest with some truth that if this device is found to be necessary in Scotland, the owners themselves will agree to apply it. That may be, but of course it is a very different state of affairs if it is recognised in legislation, and brought in the scheme of the Bill, and if in the process the Board of Trade, as representing the public and as speaking for the Government of the day, has a definite place given to it. I have come to the conclusion that for all these, and other, reasons which have been argued on the Committee stage and on Report, this paragraph is absolutely necessary, and I have no hesitation in moving that we disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I agree with the President of the Board of Trade in one thing, that this question was very fully debated in the House of Commons on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I do not think that on either side there is much to be added to the arguments that were advanced for and against the proposal. I entirely disagree with him, however, when he tries to draw a distinction between the principle of a central levy and the principle of a district levy. I followed his arguments as well as I could—and they are always easy to follow, because they are very clear—but every one of the arguments which he advanced to-day in support of the district levy was just the argument which he advanced in support of the central levy, which the House by a definite majority rejected after very full debate. The House was entirely taken by surprise on the last occasion when we reached the
district levy and he said that, although he had been defeated on the central levy, he proposed to stick to the district levy. I can put equally briefly the argument which convinced the House before that this levy is wrong.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: My right hon. Friend will remember that the district levy was retained by a substantial majority.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is true. On the last occasion many of us assumed, though perhaps we were not entitled to do so, that the two would go together, and I think that hon. Members below the Gangway were as much surprised as we were at what happened. The right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to reply that we ought to have been here to vote against the proposals; and therefore I will repeat the argument in the hope that I may be more fortunate on this occasion in convincing the House. The right hon. Gentleman has really pressed one argument only. Taking Scotland as an example, he said that though Scotland has not, on the whole, shown much liking for his scheme, yet the great attraction to the Scottish owners was this district levy, and that it is so patently to the advantage of Scotland to have the levy that the owners want it made an integral part of the scheme. If all the Scottish coalowners feel like that, they can have the levy without anything being put into the Bill. We are not inserting a provision that the district levy shall be no part of the scheme. All we ask is that the levy shall not be made a statutory levy.
There are two or three arguments against the levy. First, there is the argument that if by this statutory levy we subsidise our export trade in coal we must stultify every representation we make to foreign countries with the object of getting them to abandon their export subsidies on wheat or other commodities. The President of the Board of Trade feels the difficulty about such subsidies as much as we do. He has promised that he will be unremitting in his efforts, whether made at Geneva or through the Chancelleries of Europe, to get those countries to abandon the subsidies, but if he is to undertake that work he must do so with clean hands. If he goes with his hands stained with this statutory levy, what earthly chance of success will
he have? The foreign countries will say, "What is the good of coming to negotiate with us? The subsidy you forced through by Act of Parliament is a far stronger instance of a State-aided and State-enforced subsidy than anything to which you can object on our part.

Mr. LEE: In the Derating Bill your party applied the same principle.

Sir P. CUNLIFE-LISTER: Oh no, not in the least. I should be prepared to argue that point at any time. I am quite certain that no international lawyer would find any difficulty in arguing at the Court of The Hague—[Interruption.] The point was carefully considered at the time, and there is all the difference in the world in law—and this can be tested if necessary—between what we did in the de-rating scheme and what is being done at the present time.

Mr. WALLHEAD: If it were a question of Protection, would not the right hon. Gentleman call these powers in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade bargaining powers?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that is a relevant intervention. This is a perfectly plain issue, which does not involve the question of Free Trade or Protection.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I did not say it did.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This is not a contentious party point. I think all parties equally object to subsidised competition against this country. If the hon. Member opposite is in favour of subsidised competition, of course this argument will not appeal to him, but I think we are all agreed that it would be to our advantage if we could persuade foreign countries to abandon State subsidies in aid of exports. The President of the Board of Trade has never denied it. He will be in a very feeble position to appeal to foreign countries to reduce subsidies on exports if he himself has just passed a Bill through Parliament compelling a trade to pay a subsidy in aid of exports. Already that view is being taken by foreign countries. [Interruption.] The hon. Member who is jeering at this suggestion will find it is a real point of substance if he will take the trouble to study it, and, from the electioneering standpoint, he will find that it will not bring him many friends
among farmers if he makes it as difficult as possible to get the wheat subsidy abandoned.
That consideration ought to be enough to ensure that the proposal is abandoned; but the proposal is bad in itself. It is unnecessary, because if the coalowners wish to make a levy, they can do so without any compulsory provision being inserted in the Bill. This provision can be necessary only if the coalowners do not desire to adopt a levy or if there is a minority of owners opposed to it. What fairness is there in compelling dissentient coalowners to pay a levy which they think will not only be of no use but will actually subsidise their competitors? A coalowner who sells his coal inland and thinks this levy is a bad proposition is still to be compelled to pay the levy—not that he may himself may be helped to sell more coal, but that another coalowner in the same district may sell more coal.
A second objection is, Why on earth should we have a compulsory levy in order to subsidise exported coal? The President of the Board of Trade has said the levy may also be used to subsidise coal sold to our steel-works and, in short, that coal may be sold at a differential price. There are in the House a good many people interested in the steel trade, but I do not think any of them look forward with any certainty, or with very much hope, to the levy being used to make coal cheaper for their steel-works. On the contrary, all the steel manufacturers to whom I have spoken are extremely anxious lest their coal should be made rather dearer, while coal for export is subsidised. It is no good burking the question; that is the real object of the levy. Another point is that there will be no limit on the amount of the levy. It may be 3d. or 6d. At whose expense will the money be found? At the expense of the British consumer, every time. Already he will have to pay any increase which may occur in the price of coal. Coal sold in a foreign market has to be sold at the world price. Therefore, any ordinary increase in cost brought about by this Bill will fall on the British consumer, and if, on top of that, is to be added the cost of this levy, that will be another charge upon the pockets of the domestic or industrial consumers of coal in this country.
In the words used by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), a tax upon British industry is to be used to subsidise competitors in foreign countries. As another right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), said, the result of this subsidy on export coal will probably be that British ships trading in the narrow seas will find it cheaper to bunker in a foreign port. There will be further unemployment in the ports of this country, fewer ships coming into our ports, rises in harbour dues—all the vicious circle of difficulties. The levy is not a necessary part of the Bill. It is not an integral part of the scheme. It is really an excrescence on the scheme. As I understand it, the coalowners themselves are by no means unanimous about it. If they were unanimous, there would be no need to insert compulsory powers in the Bill. It will make this Bill, which, as I have never disguised from the House, I regard as a bad Bill, a very much worse Bill. There is a very general feeling in many parts of the House that that is so. Hon. Members above and below the Gangway on this side of the House have frequently chaffed one another on the lack of unity within their respective parties. On this occasion we are in the happy position of finding a completely united Conservative party and a completely united Liberal party. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wait and see!"] The right hon. Member for Darwen made a most admirable speech against this proposal on a previous occasion and so did the right hon. Member for St. Ives. They are completely united on this matter, and I congratulate them upon it, and we also are united; and as this does not involve the principles of the Bill I hope the President of the Board of Trade will drop the proposal. It really has not appealed to the House. If the President of the Board of Trade necessitates our pressing this to a Division, I shall look with confidence to hon. Members below the Gangway to support us, as they have promised to do.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: May I begin by reciprocating the very kind remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on the unity on this subject which happily prevails in that party as well as in this party? There is another point on which
I agree with him, and with the President of the Board of Trade also. Although the views they expressed upon this Amendment were diametrically opposite, they both agreed that the subject had been most thoroughly debated in Committee and on Report, and that it was not necessary to go over the arguments so very well expressed on those occasions.
7.0 p.m.

If this question of the district levy had been dealt with by the House of Commons immediately after it dealt with the central levy, there is no doubt whatever that this proposal would have met the same fate, and it is only a Parliamentary accident that the subject has come back to us from the House of Lords instead of having been dealt with in the House of Commons. The President of the Board of Trade, in defending the proposal, has really limited his defence to one district, Scotland. I do not know of any other district in which at the present time this proposal is defended. The President of the Board of Trade has, at any rate, to-day pleaded only the case of Scotland. How does it work out there according to the case he has presented to us? He says that Lanark produces for home consumption and Fife for export, that Lanark is in the position of being able to charge more for its coal, and Fife wishes to subsidise its coal, and that, the two being in one district, Scotland must unite for this purpose.
The consequence is that, if this proposal is put into the Bill, Lanark coal-owners would be able to charge their customers more, a levy being placed on their coal. The Glasgow Corporation, for example, would pay more to the Lanark coalowners for the coal for its gasworks. They would not retain the money, but would put it into a pool from which the Fife coalowners would draw it in order to give a reduction to their customers in Sweden, Norway, or wherever it might be. That is the position. Glasgow Corporation pays the money to the Lanark coalowners, who hand it over to the Fife coalowners, who hand it over to the Swedish consumers. That is the position which the right hon. Gentleman defends, and it appears a very amazing proposition to be defended on the Floor of the House by a representative of the British Government. It is legalised dumping. What is dumping? It is selling
goods below the cost of production. These coals from Fife are to be sold abroad below the cost of production at the expense of the Glasgow Corporation and other consumers.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Surely this is not a case of dumping goods at a price with which the manufacturers of those countries cannot compete? That coal must be put on the European market at that price, a price corresponding to the European price, and, unless we put it at that price, we cannot sell the coal at all.

Sir H. SAMUEL: We discussed that theory of the European price in Committee, and discussed whether there is such a thing as a European price. The price of British coal enters very largely into the determination of European price. Suppose that, by some gift of the gods, the right hon. Gentleman was able to give a subsidy of 5s. or 10s. a ton to all British export coal, it would, of course, affect what he calls the European price. Obviously, the European price is not fixed absolutely by the laws of nature; it varies, and it varies to some extent in accordance with the supplies which the British producers are able to place upon the market. The whole idea of subsidy is, in our eyes, entirely wrong wherever it is to be found, and we do not wish to see the British Parliament authorising that principle and adopting it in this or any other case. If it is right in Scotland, just because Lanark and Fife happen to be in one district, how about South Wales, which exports coal, and another area which does not, say, Lancashire? Precisely the same arguments ought to apply. Why should not Lancashire be charged extra for its coal to subsidise South Wales? Simply because they happen to be two different districts for the purpose of this Bill. All the arguments used in respect of Lanark and Fife apply equally to any two districts in this country, one exporting and the other producing for home consumption. The House having struck out the central levy, which was intended to bring them all into one whole for this purpose, I do not see how we can retain the district levy for the same purpose.
Further, the right hon. Gentleman has never given any effective answer to the case for bunker coal. At one stage of the proceedings in this House it seemed
as though he was going to give us an assurance that he would use his powers of controlling these schemes reserved to him under the Bill to ensure that our ships which bunker in this country were not going to be charged the full price plus a levy for their coal, when, if they went to a foreign port, they would not only be free from the levy but would get the advantage of a subsidy. That is how the matter would stand under his present proposal, that any coal sold at a port in this country for bunkers would pay a levy on it, if a levy is raised, whereas the ships have to go only across the North Sea to Antwerp or Rotterdam, and they would not only get the same coal free from a levy, but with a subsidy. I do not see how it is possible to have such an unfair discrimination against British ports. Furthermore, this proposal, as it stands in the Bill, must involve a great deal of friction between one district and another. They are competing against one another for the export trade, but you are going to give Scotland a levy for this export trade which other districts cannot obtain. It is quite true that, under the Bill, the consent of the Central Council has to be given before any such levy can be imposed within a district. I can imagine the friction that will take place between Scotland on the one hand and the other exporting districts on the other when Scotland's levy comes before the Central Council for final determination.
For all these reasons, the House ought to adhere to the view expressed on the last occasion when it rejected the central levy. No one can say that this is vital to the Bill or to Part I of the Bill, because when the central levy was struck out, it was proved not to be a vital Amendment by the fact that the Bill survived. If this is struck out of the Bill now, as the House of Lords propose, no one can suggest that it is a serious impairment of the powers proposed by the Government. On this occasion the House of Lords have agreed with us in the views expressed on these benches and, as they have agreed with us, we find we must agree with them.

Colonel LANE FOX: I wish to deal with only one point on which the President of the Board of Trade—I am sure not intentionally—may have misled the House in the speech he made. He led
us to understand that Scotland was in favour of the retention of this district levy. It is true that a minority of the owners in Scotland, some of the Fife owners, are in favour of it, but I have authority to say that the Scottish committee, who were called specially to consider this matter, decided by a majority that they did not wish to have a levy. They decided that the ordinary arrangements by which they can make voluntary arrangements among themselves was sufficient. They wish to have full power to make their own arrangements, and not to have this compulsory arrangement under the Bill.

Sir H. SAMUEL: What committee is that?

Colonel LANE FOX: The Scottish Coalowners' Committee representing the Scottish coalowners. If I had not made that point, the right hon. Gentleman's speech might have led the House to believe that the one and only solid point he tried to make in favour of this proposal, that it was really necessary for Scotland, was also supported by the owners in Scotland. The point is not as good a one as he suggests, although it is the only solid point he tried to make in favour of this proposal, which I do not believe will be more than futile. I do not believe it will ever be used.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Before we divide, may we have a reply from the right hon. Gentleman? He based his whole case on the plea of the Scottish coalowners for this provision, but the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has said that the Scottish coalowners do not wish it. Does the right hon. Gentleman still wish to proceed, nevertheless?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I thought I made clear in my speech a few minutes ago that there has been a division of opinion with regard to this Bill among the Scottish coalowners. That division of opinion continues, but I hope they will agree to initiate a scheme in Scotland after the Bill becomes law. What I tried to make plain was that the Fifeshire owners and others who appreciate this export position are certainly in favour of the levy, and, indeed, regard it as absolutely essential to Scotland.

Colonel LANE FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that the Ayrshire and Lanarkshire owners are wholly against this Bill?

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 220.

Division No. 338.]
AYES.
[7.11 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Charieton, H. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Chater, Daniel
Groves, Thomas E.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Church, Major A. G.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Clarke, J. S.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Alpass, J. H.
Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Ammon, Charles George
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Arnott, John
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harbison, T. J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Compton, Joseph
Hardie, George D.


Ayles, Walter
Cove, William G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Daggar, George
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Dallas, George
Haycock, A. W.


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Hayday, Arthur


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bellamy, Albert
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Devlin, Joseph
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Dickson, T.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Benson, G.
Dukes, C.
Harriotts, J.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Duncan, Charles
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Ede, James Chuter
Hoffman, P. C.


Bowen, J. W.
Edge, Sir William
Hollins, A.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edmunds, J. E.
Hopkin, Daniel


Bromfield, William
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Horrabin, J. F.


Bromley, J.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Brooke, W.
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Isaacs, George


Brothers, M.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Gibbins, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Johnston, Thomas


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gill, T. H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Buchanan, G.
Gillett, George M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Burgess, F. G.
Gossling, A. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Gould, F.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Cameron, A. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Cape, Thomas
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kennedy, Thomas


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Snell, Harry


Kinley, J.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Knight, Holford
Muff, G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lang, Gordon
Muggeridge, H. T.
Sorensen, R.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Naylor, T. E.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lathan, G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stephen, Campbell


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Oldfield, J. R.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Lawson, John James
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Strauss, G. R.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle)
Palin, John Henry
Sullivan, J.


Leach, W.
Paling, Wilfrid
Sutton, J. E.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Palmer, E. T.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Lees, J.
Perry, S. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Thurtle, Ernest


Longbottom, A. W.
Pole, Major D. G.
Tillett, Ben


Longden, F.
Potts, John S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Price, M. P.
Toole, Joseph


Lowth, Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.
Tout, W. J.


Lunn, William
Richards, R.
Townend, A. E.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Turner, B.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ritson, J.
Vaughan, D. J.


McElwee, A.
Romeril, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


McEntee, V. L.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Walkden, A. G.


McKinlay, A.
Rowson, Guy
Walker, J.


MacLaren, Andrew
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wallace, H. W.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Wallhead, Richard C.


McShane, John James
Sanders, W. S.
Watkins, F. C.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sawyer, G. F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Mansfield, W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


March, S.
Scurr, John
Wellock, Wilfred


Marcus, M.
Sexton, James
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Markham, S. F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
West, F. R.


Marley, J.
Sherwood, G. H.
Westwood, Joseph


Mathers, George
Shield, George William
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Matters, L. W.
Shillaker, J. F.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Maxton, James
Shinwell, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Melville, Sir James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Messer, Fred
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Middleton, G.
Sinkinson, George
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mills, J. E.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Montague, Frederick
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Morley, Ralph
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wise, E. F.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)



Moses, J. J. H.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buchan, John
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Albery, Irving James
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Butler, R. A.
Duckworth, G. A. V.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Eden, Captain Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Carver, Major W. H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Aske, Sir Robert
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Elmley, Viscount


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
England, Colonel A.


Astor, Viscountess
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Atkinson, C.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chapman, Sir S.
Ferguson, Sir John


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Christie, J. A.
Fielden, E. B.


Balniel, Lord
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Foot, Isaac


Beaumont, M. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ford, Sir P. J.


Berry, Sir George
Colfox, Major William Philip
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Colman, N. C. D.
Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Colville, Major D. J.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bird, Ernest Roy
Cowan, D. M.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)


Birkett, W. Norman
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Boyce, H. L.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Granville, E.


Bracken, B.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Gray, Milner


Brass, Captain Sir William
Dalkeith, Earl of
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John




Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Meller, R. J.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Millar, J. D.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nathan, Major H. L.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Harbord, A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Harris, Percy A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, T. J.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Haslam, Henry C.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peaks, Capt. Osbert
Thomson, Sir F.


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Train, J.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Purbrick, R.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Pybus, Percy John
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hurd, Percy A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsbotham, H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Remer, John R.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Wells, Sydney R.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
White, H. G.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Rothschild, J. de
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Long, Major Eric
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Withers, Sir John James


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart



Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Savery, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Scott, James
Sir George Penny and Captain


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Wallace.


Marjoribanks, E. C.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 12, line 17, agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Committees of Investigation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 17, after the word "interests," insert:
or is unfair or inequitable in its operation.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
These words are quite unnecessary in the Bill and would involve all matters going to a committee of investigation. There is already full provision made for arbitration.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not at all clear that these words are unnecessary. The Lords Amendment is to insert the words:
or is unfair or inequitable in its operation.
Why is it unnecessary to insert those words? The whole contention has been that the scheme has to be fair in its operation, and that, if it is not fair, then there should be a right of appeal. Is
it really alleged that these words should not be inserted because they are unnecessary, or is it because the Government think that there ought not to be a right of appeal to an arbitrator where the scheme is alleged to be unfair or inequitable in its operation? When I am told that those words are unnecessary, I should like to remind the House that in another place the Amendment we are discussing was inserted with some judicial authority behind it, and it was supported by no less an authority than the late Lord Chancellor. The authority of an ex-Lord Chancellor as to what is or what is not necessary, on a point of drafting, to give effect to a proposal is, I submit to the House, a rather important authority. If the President of the Board of Trade thinks those words are unnecessary, then I am bound to say that I think the House will agree with me when I say that I think the judgment of a great lawyer is more likely to be right on a question of drafting than the judgment of mere laymen like the President of the Board of Trade and myself. Therefore, if this Motion to disagree with the
Lords Amendment is moved on the ground that the words proposed are unnecessary—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that the support given to a particular Amendment by a Noble Lord in another place ought to be used as an argument to influence this debate.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of course, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I am advised that people with considerable legal knowledge would disagree with the President of the Board of Trade in the view that these words are unnecessary. I think that on this matter I am entitled to have the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, one of whom, I presume, is available for this purpose. If they are not in the House I say, with great respect, that they ought to be here. What are the Law Officers here for? [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not here."] I will put the matter in another way and ask what are the Law Officers paid for? I understand that they are paid to advise this House on points of law, and I think we should have the assistance of the Law Officers as to whether it is necessary or unnecessary to insert these words. In the absence of the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, I shall certainly vote for the retention of these words. If, in addition to the question whether these words are superfluous or not, the President of the Board of Trade is challenging the reasonableness of having a right of appeal against a scheme which is said to be unfair or inequitable in its operation, I am much more emboldened to oppose this Amendment, because, if there is not the right to complain of a scheme under this Bill that it is unfair or inequitable in its operation, I cannot see any point in having the right to go to arbitration or to a committee of investigation at all, and, therefore, I sincerely hope that, unless we have a much clearer explanation, the House will insist on retaining these words.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I certainly do not feel that I am in a position to vote on a highly technical matter of this kind after the very thin explanation that we have had from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has passed over the matter with the sort of gesture that one
would expect from a Socialist Government. When we try to make the Bill fair and equitable by the insertion of a provision of this sort, the right hon. Gentleman says that it must not be put into the Bill. My right hon. Friend and Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) has told us that from a legal point of view there are grave difficulties in this matter, and how can a mere layman, such as I am, and such as many hon. Members opposite are, come to a decision without the advice of a real legal authority? My right hon. Friend asked for the Law Officers of the Crown, and I must say that on a technical Amendment of this kind I feel that one can vote with more comfort after one has had their advice.
I do not think, however, that I should be satisfied with the decision merely of the Law Officers, because I have found that Law Officers supporting the Government are apt to be a little biased on the one side or the other. I see in the House other Gentlemen with great legal knowledge, one belonging to the semi-Opposition below the Gangway, and perhaps he might give us some advice upon this very technical question, because they are quite unbalanced in their minds—[Interruption]—and go from one side to the other with more than ordinary facility, so that one of them might quite easily give many opinions as to whether this is unfair or inequitable. In fact, I know some of them who could quite well prove that it was unfair and fair as well.

Mr. SEXTON: On a point of Order. May I respectfully ask, what have we done to deserve this?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think that what the hon. Member has done to deserve this has been to allow himself to get into the unfortunate position of being so misguided as to put the worst Government of modern times into power. Otherwise, I should be able to sit and watch him, and he would not be hearing a bad Bill torn to pieces. That is his trouble at the present time. This Clause, apart from the technical side, deals with committees of investigation, and it provides for certain procedure in the event of such a committee being of opinion that any provision of a scheme is contrary to the public interest.
One can quite understand that; we do not want these committees to do anything
contrary to the interests of the great public in this country. Having arrived at that point, which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite accept quite freely, why should they object to the insertion of a further statement making that procedure apply also if the committee think that there is anything unfair? Do they want, in this Bill, to do things which are unfair? I believe that, no matter whether it applies to a large or a small amalgamation, or to a large or small number of people, the average individual in this House and outside in the country does not want anything to be done which is in any way unfair. The whole position of the House of Commons is bound up with the idea that you should endeavour, when you legislate, to be absolutely fair to every section of the community. Almost any one of us can understand that quite easily.
Coming to the further part of the Amendment, with which the right hon. Gentleman was so very chary in dealing, namely, the question whether any provision of the scheme is inequitable in its operation, I should like to ask what precisely is meant by that. We are trying to set up a system for dealing with this industry, and we want to do it in such a way that to no section of that great community—and the mining community is a great community—are things done which are inequitable. We do not want any section of the mining community, even though it may be only one pit or only a few individuals, to be in what is known as an inequitable position; and we want to go a step further—we want to be quite certain that the whole operation of this Clause and of these committees works out equitably.
The Government have behaved in an extraordinarily casual way in regard to this Amendment. We have not been allowed during the whole of these very complicated technical discussions this afternoon to have any real expert opinion from them. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman has worked most industriously, and has tried his best the whole time, but we have been dealing with really big, technical and complicated matters, and also with matters of fairness and equity which go far beyond the technical side; and on such an occasion I think the House is entitled to the very
best advice that it can obtain. For that reason I join with my right hon. Friend in saying that it is essential that we should have the best legal advice from every quarter of the House. We should know how these schemes operate in a technical and legal way, and how they may possibly affect, directly or indirectly, all the matters which are dealt with in this Clause. I want to hear a real, proper technical explanation of this matter, and, until I do, I do not see how it is possible for me to vote as to whether I should follow the Lords in this Amendment or not.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am a little puzzled by the attitude of the Government in regard to this Amendment. I have been looking at the Sub-section very carefully, to see what it is that makes them come to the conclusion that the Amendment is unnecessary, and, with the very greatest respect to the President of the Board of Trade, who, I am sure, is acting upon some advice, although the advice does not appear to be here at the moment, I cannot understand what is the real difficulty or why this Amendment is considered to be unnecessary. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not desire that a scheme brought forward under this Clause should be one that is unfair or inequitable. It may very well be, of course—we know that there are examples of such things—that the State may decide for the common weal that certain unfairnesses should be brought into existence, but I cannot feel that that is what is desired under this Clause, and, perhaps, therefore, I may presume to examine it for a moment in the absence of the Law Officers, who, I regret, are not here to check my observation.
We find that the committee of investigation make their investigation in order to see whether there is any provision of the scheme that is contrary to the public interest. But a thing may not be contrary to the public interest and yet may be unfair and inequitable to particular individuals who may find themselves injuriously affected. As the Clause stands now, if the Committee come to the conclusion that it is contrary to the public interest, they are to report to the Board of Trade. Then, if this Amendment were agreed to, the Board, after considering the report of the Committee and consulting such persons as
appear to them to be affected by the unfair and inequitable provision, would make recommendations to the council or executive board charged with the duty of administering the scheme. So far from these words being unnecessary, it seems to me, applying my mind to this conundrum as best I can, with the desire to give that assistance which I should have preferred to come from those who are really responsible in this matter, namely, the Law Officers—it seems to me that, so far from these words being unnecessary, they are exactly the reverse, and I submit to the House that in these circumstances the Amendment should receive our approval.

Mr. ATKINSON: I am certain that the President of the Board of Trade will agree that Sub-section (6) of Clause 5 is a corollary to Sub-section (1) of Clause 5, and that, even as a matter of drafting, the language of both Sub-sections ought to be the same. Sub-section (1) says that:
There shall be constituted a national committee of investigation consisting of nine members, which shall be charged with the duty of investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of the central scheme.
The House will observe that the Committee are to investigate
any complaint made with respect to the operation of the central scheme.
You could not have anything expressed more broadly. We have been told all along that this Clause was for the protection, not merely of the public, but of the consumers, of the distributors, of each and every person whose interests might be adversely affected in this matter. This Committee having investigated any complaint with respect to the operation of the central scheme, you then come to the machinery which is to be put into operation. After investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of the scheme, the Committee of investigation is to report, but it is now cut down to one thing only—the Committee are only to report if in their opinion any provision of the scheme is contrary to the public interest, however well justified a complaint may be as to the unfairness of the operation of the scheme to certain classes of consumers or distributors.
Under Sub-section (1) the complaint is not limited. If Sub-section (1) said that the Committee were to investigate any complaint of the scheme being contrary to the public interest, one would make no complaint about the wording of Subsection (6), but Sub-section (1) is perfectly general—there is the right of complaint and the duty of investigating the complaint; and yet, however well founded the complaint may be, the only occasion on which the Committee have any duty to report is if the provision in question is contrary to the public interest. That never could have been intended by those who framed this Clause, because it cuts down the utility of the whole of this procedure. This is not a party matter; it is only a matter of wording, and of what we have been told again and again, namely, that the intention of the Government was that these committees of investigation were to be the one protection of people who were adversely affected by anything that was done under the Bill. They are bound to investigate any complaint, but they cannot do anything unless they can show that it is contrary to the interest of the public. Why we should have words of limitation cutting down their powers of reporting I cannot conceive. The words limit the whole operation of the scheme to something affecting the public interest. However grossly unfair it may be to this or that class, or individual, or trade, unless they can show that it is contrary to the public interest, nothing whatever is to be done. If the committee come to the conclusion that it is unfair in its operation, is it not right that they should have power to report it to the Board of Trade?

Mr. EVANS: I do not attach quite as much importance to this Amendment as some hon. Members who have spoken, but I cannot understand why the Government does not accept it. We are dealing with a committee which is to consider complaints about the operation of a scheme when some people feel that it is not operating fairly. Surely it is the desire of everyone—I should have thought it would be the primary desire of those who want to see the Act working smoothly—that any person who feels aggrieved, not by schemes which have been prepared, but by schemes that are in operation, should have a right to submit his grievance to the Board of Trade. That
is all it comes to. The committee of investigation inquiries into the grievance, and its only power is to report to the Board of Trade. The report of the committee of investigation is not the final, determining voice in the matter. The Board of Trade has still the right to say whether the voice of the committee is justifiable or not.
As the Bill stands, the only people who can complain of its operation are those who can say that the scheme is contrary to the public interest. I do not suppose there is a single Member of the House who does not appreciate the vagueness of a phrase of that sort. It does not really cover points that might easily arise when the scheme is in operation on the part of consumers, distributors and many other sections of the community. They may feel that it is working unfairly to them and, surely, they are to be given the right of going to a committee of investigation and asking it to report the matter to the Board of Trade. It is then for the Board of Trade to decide whether the complaint is justifiable or not. The Government will be doing a great deal, if they accept the Amendment, to promote the smooth working of the Act when it comes into operation and, by refusing it, they are merely adding to the difficulties that it will create.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I should like to point out that the business world is very anxious in any case about the operation of the Bill. The point that has come up now is quite a serious one in its own way. The case for the insertion of the words has been ably argued, but I would strongly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his opinion for this reason quite apart from the arguments which have been advanced. If the question had not been raised, it might not have been considered necessary, but, it having been raised, and the Government refusing to insert the words, a very different impression will be created. I would strongly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the moral effect on the business community when it understands that the Government refuse to admit any appeal on the ground of unfairness.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: These benches are not without assistance in this matter. I think it is only right to resist the complaint against the absence of the
Attorney-General. He has given considerable attention to matters which have been under discussion. He is very heavily overworked, and he is never wanting when his other duties enable him to be here. This Clause contemplates the investigation of the interests of the subject as affected by schemes to be set up by the Act. As it now stands, if it came under consideration elsewhere, it would be held that all that had to be looked to was whether the effect of the scheme was contrary to the public interest. It might well be argued that a scheme which sub-served the public interest was inequitable with regard to individuals. Subject to what the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill may say, I find some difficulty in understanding the ground on which the Government are resisting the inclusion of these words. Not only will the public interest have to be safeguarded, but, if it can be alleged by a private person that a scheme will work unfairly or inequitably, that is a fact that should be brought within the operation of the Clause. I am not in the confidence of the Government and I do not know what reasons have induced them to resist the insertion of these words, but I would strongly appeal to the Government to adopt them.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman, being deprived of the services of his official legal adviser, has yet been able to follow the argument addressed to him by the volunteer below the Gangway on his own side of the House. The fact that we are unable to obtain the guidance of either of the Law Officers is, perhaps, of less importance, because of the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman bases his objection. He did not challenge the purpose of the Amendment. He only said that the words were unnecessary. If he admits that the purpose of the Amendment is good, that the dangers against which it is going to provide should be provided against and if his only possible objection is that the words are unnecessary, but not harmful, cannot he consent to admit them?
I have taken no part in the debates on the Bill hitherto. I have been content to listen to a certain amount of discussion, but I have not contributed to lengthen it. This has been a wholly one-sided discussion. Every speaker, of whatever
party, has felt that there was a gap in the Bill. It is that an individual, who, by reason of a scheme, finds himself inequitably and unfairly treated, has no remedy unless the inequity can be shown to be against the general public interest. Obviously, there are cases under this or any similar Bill where no large public interest is affected, though a particular individual or, it may be, a class or a geographical section of people are unfairly treated. Unless the inequity of which they complain is one that is contrary to the general interest of the public, they have no right of redress. That is the agreed statement from every bench except the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has listened to the arguments that have been addressed to him. I hope he will feel that the words import something which is necessary to the Bill and something which he himself would desire to see inserted in order that the Bill may work fairly and equitably, not merely as regards the general interest of the public, but as between different individuals or different sections.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: No doubt a provision of this kind raises important questions as to the protection of the public under this Part of the Bill. Of course, the whole object of Clause 5, relating to these national committees and to district committees, is to protect consumers. I hardly think the attendance of the Law Officers is necessary for this point, because it is a comparatively simple issue. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) referred to Clause 5 (1), which relates to the duty of investigating any complaint with respect to the operation of the scheme. Of course, under Sub-section (6) we are here dealing with a different matter. The Amendment proposes to insert the words:
or is unfair or inequitable in its operation.
8.0 p.m.
The speeches which have been made indicate clearly that they have in mind cases of individual hardship which they think will not be covered if we leave the Clause in the form in which it stands without this addition. In a matter of this kind the Committee must direct its attention to the broad question of public interest. I should say that in the great
majority of cases that would settle the question probably of any individual hardship, but there might be cases of individual hardship in which, while it was clear that the scheme was in the public interests viewed as a whole, nevertheless contained some elements which the individual or the undertaking regarded as unfair or inequitable. If these words are inserted in this Clause it will mean that they will have, as I understand the matter, a meaning similar to the wider words of "the public interests," and, although the second condition, "or is unfair or inequitable," may apply regarding some individuals, it is in the public interests that the whole machinery of this Committee's operations must start to work. I think that this would lead to very great difficulty indeed. I do not think, with every desire to meet hon. Friends opposite, that other interests than the public interests can or should prevail, and, that being so, and being satisfied that any individual case would be equitably and fairly considered, I can only resist the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has completely altered the ground on which I understood him to present the case to the House. I understood that when he presented the case to the House he was refusing this Amendment because it was unnecessary, but now he is rejecting it, not because it is unnecessary, but because he says that the individual members of the public ought not to have a claim on the ground that they are being unfairly or inequitably treated. That is a most extraordinary position, and we should have gone into the matter with a great deal of detail when this Clause was in Committee had we realised the position. In regard to this Clause, which is set up for the protection of the individual, we moved, as the right hon. Gentleman remembers, an Amendment to give a further right of appeal, and it was rejected. There was a sort of compromise arranged in the House. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) made a proposal that there should be an additional right of arbitration to come in as well as the committee. That was in the interest of individual consumers. It was not to decide whether the scheme at large was in the public interests. That is all decided at a much
earlier stage in the working out of this plan. It is decided when the central scheme and the district schemes are framed and submitted to the Board of Trade. Then the Board of Trade considers any objections which may be made before approving a scheme.
The President of the Board of Trade is not to approve of a scheme, whether it be a central scheme or a district scheme, unless he is satisfied that it is in the public interest. At any rate, there is prejudice in its favour, because the Board of Trade has heard general arguments about the scheme and said, "Yes, we regard this scheme in the public interest." But observe what are the words here. It is the operation of a scheme; the way in which a scheme affects the individual. It cannot be anything else. That fact was in all our minds. If it is the way in which it affects the operation of the scheme, affects the individual, the only thing the individual can be interested in is whether it is prejudicial to him as an individual; whether he is being charged too much for his coal. You may charge me twice the amount that anybody else is charged for coal. That is prejudicial to me though it may not affect the public interest in the least unless thereby I am not able to pay my taxes. Surely, I ought to have the right of appeal.
I would say this further point. When you come to the amalgamation Clause there is put in, not only "the public interest," but something else which is fair and equitable to the parties concerned. This is what we want here, Unless the individual has the right of appeal to an arbitrator in respect of his complaint, and can have his complaint judged on the merits as it affects him as an individual, you might as well strike out the whole of Clause 5 and leave us to the existing provisions of the Bill. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade has somehow fallen into error in this matter.

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The President of the Board of Trade, as far as I can understand, first of all based his objection to accepting the Amendment on the ground that the words were unnecessary. Now, what legal opinion there is in the House having apparently been against him, he falls
back on another explanation which, to put it shortly, is that public interests must prevail where private interests are concerned. That may be right in many cases, but what are we doing here? If he does not allow these words to be put in, he is not deciding whether the public interests must necessarily override private interests; he is refusing to put in an Act of Parliament a provision which will allow those private interests and questions of unfairness to private interests to be considered. This committee has to go into the matter, and it is for them to consider in every case what is the extent of the private grievance and whether the extent of the private grievance is so trifling that the public interests may be taken to override it or whether that private interest is so important that it must be considered in connection with the public interests.
I will give an example. It would no doubt be in the public interest in certain conditions to take a very large and valuable property from a private owner or group of private owners without paying anything, but surely, if any proposal of that sort was made, it would be regarded as unfair and inequitable, and this House would never approve it. I know that the President of the Board of Trade is one of the fairest-minded men in this House, and nobody in any part of the House would accuse him of being otherwise. The fact, therefore, that he has ventured to argue in the way that he did in his last speech, leads me to think that he requires legal assistance and advice as to the effect of this Amendment generally, entirely apart from the question first raised as to whether it is necessary or not. I would be the last person to complain unnecessarily of the absence of such a hard-working person as the Attorney-General, but, after all, there are other Law Officers of the Crown, and, when it comes to the construction of the words in a Bill, even Scottish Law Officers are quite competent to give advice to the House, though they may not be so expert in matters of English law as the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. Therefore, I think that I must ask whether you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will allow me to move that the debate on this Amendment be adjourned until such time as the House has the benefit of a Law
Officer of the Crown to advise it on the matter.

Captain PEAKE: I beg to second the Motion.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has put himself in a dilemma from which there is absolutely no escape. Either the expression "unfair and inequitable" is covered by the phrase "the public interests" and adds nothing, in which case, why should we not have the words in the Bill, or the right hon. Gentleman has to contend that the provisions of this scheme would be unfair and inequitable and the consumer whom it is intended to protect is to have absolutely no remedy. The right hon. Gentleman has to adopt one position or the other. So far he has adopted both in turn. This is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I rather hope that my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Motion will not press it, because since the discussion on the Amendment opened its character has been wholly changed. If there were admitted to be serious differences of opinion between the Government and other sections of the House as to what was the interpretation of the Bill as it stands and whether these words were necessary to make its meaning clear or not, I think we should have a right to the attendance of a Law Officer and to the benefit of his advice on the matter of the construction of the Statute. That is no longer the question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has entirely abandoned his first reason for opposing the Lords Amendment. He no longer says that the words are unnecessary. He says the exact contrary. He says that the words will have a great effect, and he does not desire that effect to be imported into the Bill. It is no longer a question of law; it is a question of morality. I confess that I prefer the right hon. Gentleman's opinion to the Attorney-General's opinion on a question of morality, and I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will not press for the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. EVANS: I also hope that the Motion may not be pressed, and that the President of the Board of Trade will
reconsider what he has said. He has adopted a position which is unworthy of him and is impossible. His attitude in the first speech in asking for the rejection of the Amendment was that the words were not necessary. I can understand that point of view, and, as a lawyer, I should object to putting into the Bill words which are unnecessary. But now he has taken up an entirely different attitude. He has not said that the words are unnecessary, but he has said that the words import something into the Bill which he does not want. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter. This Sub-section deals with complaints against the operation of the scheme, and all that we are asking is that if there is a person or a company or a set of persons who feel that they have grounds of complaint against the way in which the scheme is operating, they shall have the right to put that complaint before a committee.
The right hon. Gentleman was trying to draw a distinction between public interest and a private complaint. That does not arise. We ask that, the private individual should have an opportunity of putting his case before a committee. The committee will then express their view upon the case, that view will be conveyed by the committee to the Board of Trade, and it will then rest with the Board of Trade, after considering the report and after consultation, to say whether or not they agree with the opinion of the committee. Therefore, there is no question of conflict between private and public interests. It is merely a question of giving the people who feel that they have a complaint in regard to the operation of the scheme, the right of making their complaint to a committee and, through the committee, to the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly safe in accepting the Amendment.

Sir D. HERBERT: Perhaps it would be more in order if I withdrew my Motion, because the general discussion cannot properly go on so long as my proposal is before the House. With the permission of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion, and, in doing so, I would point out that my reason for moving it was that, the President of the Board of Trade being such a fair-minded man, I thought the attitude he was
taking on the second point was due to a mistake as to the effect of the Clause rather than a mistaken view on the question of morality.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have listened with very great care to the debate and, with the best will in the world, I cannot agree that there was any contradiction between the two statements that I made to the House. When I said originally that the addition of these words was unnecessary, I was thinking entirely of the public interest and of Sub-section (6). To that view I adhere. Let us see clearly what is intended. My hon. Friend opposite is entirely wrong in suggesting that there is any bar to a complaint of any kind being made by an individual or a body of individuals to the committee. That is fully provided for in the Bill. There is no obstacle of any kind. Therefore, we need have no doubt about access to the tribunal, either nationally or locally, for the protection of consumers. Let us see what the Sub-section says on this point:
If after investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of a scheme, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any provision of the scheme is contrary to the public interests, it shall be the duty of the committee to report the matter to the Board of Trade, and if, after considering the report and consulting such persons as appear to them to be affected, the Board agree with the opinion of the committee, the Board shall make recommendations to the council or executive board charged with the duty of administering the scheme, with a view to the rectification of the matter complained of.
The Board can take such action as will bring about rectification of any abuse even to the putting in of a new scheme, if that should be necessary, in the last resort. I do submit very strongly that the words "is contrary to the public interest" cover the great bulk of the field of any possible complaints that would be brought before the Committee. If the words "or is unfair or inequitable in its operation" are added, then if the Committee find that the scheme is entirely in the public interests and some individual or company, for example, a gas undertaking, considers that it is inequitable or unfair so far as they are concerned, although they themselves do not put forward the view that it is contrary to the public interest, then that single individual
or company, who cannot make the plea that the public interests are at stake, gets equality, with the public interest and the Committee would be obliged to agree that there was this inequitable element as regards this individual or concern, and all the subsequent steps that are mentioned come into operation.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman says that all the subsequent steps have to be put into operation. Does it not simply mean that the President of the Board of Trade has to take cognisance of the report of the Committee and to consider whether the injustice to the individual requires a revision of a scheme which is not contrary to the public interest?

Mr. GRAHAM: Under the terms of the Clause as it stands we take steps for the rectification of any abuse which exists under the scheme, and if abuse continues we may make a new scheme.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: How does the right hon. Gentleman ever get into action if the committee cannot investigate a complaint?

Mr. GRAHAM: The Committee does investigate. There have been very long discussions on that point. The Committee does operate and make investigations.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman says that an individual or a concern which considers it has a grievance has no locus standi unless its grievance is also a grievance against the public interest.

Mr. GRAHAM: The great majority of cases would present no difficulty at all. In the great bulk of cases I have no doubt the Committee would say that the provision complained of is not in the public interest, and they would say "We will make our report to the President of the Board of Trade and the Board of Trade will proceed, if it desires, under the terms of the Statute." If we insert the words "is unfair or inequitable in its operation," it means that the individual or the undertaking gets equality and may have their view prevailing and taken into account as against that of the public interest. I do not think that there is anything new in the public interest prevailing in matters of this kind. While I am anxious to meet
the Committee I am unable to agree that this proposal or the objections of hon. Members opposite are well founded.

Mr. REID: The first Sub-section of Clause 5 is quite wide with regard to the duty of investigating complaints. There are many cases where there may be hardship to the individual but no conflict between the public interest and the interests of that individual. There may be cases where a scheme or agreement affecting the individual has an unexpected result and treats a particular person unfairly but where there is no conflict with the public interest. Suppose a person or concern goes before the committee and establishes the fact that there is some inequity as regards them and that the public interest is not involved one way or other, the committee, in that case, cannot report to the Board of Trade. In that case the Board of Trade would not be able to revise the scheme—

Mr. W. GRAHAM indicated dissent.

Mr. REID: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have listened to every word of the debate and from my examination of the Bill that is the result, as it appears to me, and I think I am correct. If an individual goes before the committee and establishes a case of hardship as affecting himself but that the public interest is not involved one way or the other then the committee cannot deal with the matter.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The President of the Board of Trade has mentioned that in the great bulk of cases no question will arise, that is to say, that what is in the public interest will also not be detrimental to the individual, but what the House is concerned about is that class of case which will be the minority, the exceptional case. The right hon. Gentleman says that we must consider the public interest. Undoubtedly we must. He says further that the public interest may work out to the detriment of some individual. It may, and the public interest should prevail. But this Amendment does not deal with cases of detriment or hardship but with cases of unfairness and inequity. That is the only point. It is the case of a clash between private and public interests, a case where an independent committee and the Board of Trade both think that some individual
has been treated unfairly and inequitably. There may be two individuals in exactly the same circumstances, one of whom is prejudiced and the other is not. The individual who is prejudiced ought to have the right to go to this committee and to bring the matter, through the committee, to the attention of the Board of Trade. I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman's contention that the public interest can ever require unfairness and inequity in any circumstances. That is really the essence of his argument, that if the public interest requires unfairness and inequity the individual must suffer. There is a danger in these provisions that the monopoly you may set up may be oppressive, and in order to avoid that danger the Bill includes provision for committees of inquiry and an ultimate reference to the Board of Trade, and I cannot understand how the President of the Board of Trade can contend that when a case has been considered by the committee and it holds that there has been inequity and injustice, and the Board of Trade is of the same opinion, that nevertheless no action should be taken.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope, with the indulgence of the House, I may be allowed to put my point to the President of the Board of Trade. Obviously he did not understand what I was trying to express, and I want to put my point to him quite clearly. I am ready to concede that there may be cases of overriding public interest under which you are forced to overlook the hardship to the individual, but there may be, and probably will be, cases where no public interest is involved either way, and where the infliction of the hardship is not to the advantage of the State. Unless some such words as these are inserted such a case will go without a remedy. It cannot come to the notice of the Board of Trade because it will not be possible to report that it is contrary to the public interest. If it were possible to report that it is not contrary to the public interest the case could be considered. The individual could get to the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade could consider whether the case was one in which the public interest should override the individual hardship. Surely, if there is such individual hardship capable of being proved it should be possible to give proof to the committee, and if the
committee declares the hardship to exist, although they cannot prove that it is contrary to the public interest, it should be open to the Board of Trade to consider whether it is necessary to maintain the hardship in the public interest.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Surely the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) is entirely wrong. He is on the point of access to the investigating committee.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, on the power of the committee to report a grievance in a case where it is not true to say that the grievance complained of is contrary to the public interest, and where it is equally true to say that no public interest requires its infliction.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 110.

Division No. 339.]
AYES.
[8.31 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gossling, A. G.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gould, F.
McShane, John James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mansfield, W.


Alpass, J. H.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.


Ammon, Charles George
Groves, Thomas E.
Markham, S. F.


Arnott, John
Grundy, Thomas W.
Marley, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mathers, George


Ayles, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Matters, L. W.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Maxton, James


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Harbison, T. J.
Melville, Sir James


Barnes, Alfred John
Hardie, George D.
Messer, Fred


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Middleton, G.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mills, J. E.


Bellamy, Albert
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Milner, Major J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Haycock, A. W.
Montague, Frederick


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Hayday, Arthur
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Benson, G.
Hayes, John Henry
Morley, Ralph


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mort, D. L.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Moses, J. J. H.


Bromfield, William
Herriotts, J.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Bromley, J.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Brooke, W.
Hoffman, P. C.
Muff, G.


Brothers, M.
Hollins, A.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hopkin, Daniel
Naylor, T. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Horrabin, J. F.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Burgess, F. G.
Isaacs, George
Oldfield, J. R.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Palin, John Henry


Cameron, A. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Paling, Wilfrid


Cape, Thomas
Johnston, Thomas
Palmer, E. T.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Charieton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Perry, S. F.


Chater, Daniel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Church, Major A. G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pole, Major D. G.


Clarke, J. S.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Potts, John S.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Thomas
Price, M. P.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kinley, J.
Pybus, Percy John


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lang, Gordon
Quibell, D. J. K.


Compton, Joseph
Lathan, G.
Richards, R.


Cove, William G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Daggar, George
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Dallas, George
Lawson, John James
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ritson, J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leach, W.
Romeril, H. G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Devlin, Joseph
Lees, J.
Rowson, Guy


Dickson, T.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dukes, C.
Lindley, Fred W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Duncan, Charles
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sanders, W. S.


Ede, James Chuter
Longbottom, A. W.
Sandham, E.


Edge, Sir William
Longden, F.
Sawyer, G. F.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, Thomas
Scurr, John


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sexton, James


Forgan, Dr. Robert
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Gibbins, Joseph
McElwee, A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
McEntee, V. L.
Shield, George William


Gill, T. H.
McKinlay, A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Shinwell, E.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Sutton, J. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Simmons, C. J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Sinkinson, George
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Sitch, Charles H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
West, F. R.


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Thurtle, Ernest
Westwood, Joseph


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Tillett, Ben
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Toole, Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Tout, W. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Snell, Harry
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Turner, B.
Wise, E. F.


Sorensen, R.
Vaughan, D. J.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Viant, S. P.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Stephen, Campbell
Walkden, A. G.



Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Walker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wallace, H. W.
Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. B.


Strauss, G. R.
Wallhead, Richard C.
Smith.


Sullivan, J.
Watkins, F. C.



NOES.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Penny, Sir George


Aske, Sir Robert
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Atkinson, C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Granville, E.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gray, Milner
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remer, John R.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bracken, B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rothschild, J. de


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Buchan, John
Harbord, A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Scott, James


Christie, J. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Colman, N. C. D.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colville, Major D. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cowan, D. M.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Sir F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Long, Major Eric
Turton, Robert Hugh


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
White, H. G.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Millar, J. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Elmley, Viscount
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Womersley, W. J.


England, Colonel A.
O'Connor, T. J.
Worthington-Evans Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)



Fielden, E. B.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Foot, Isaac
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Ford, Sir P. J.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Warrender.


Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 24, leave out "interests," and insert "interest."

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is purely a question of drafting.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that the alteration of "interests" to "interest" is purely drafting. I have tried to ascertain whether the right hon. Gentleman is right or wrong. We take
these two or three words in the Clause and we have to decide whether it is contrary to the public interest in the singular or to the public interests in the plural. It is quite clear that, so far as this particular Amendment is concerned, there ought to be a comparatively wide judgment on the matter. We ought not to have this important Committee sitting in such a way that it looks at a question from only one point of view. It is, therefore, material whether we insert the word "interest" or "interests." We might have a narrow-minded Committee which would take the point of view that
nothing mattered except one isolated fact. I say frankly that I do not want to see these Committees instructed in this Bill to take such a point of view. It almost looks to me as if someone has made a drafting mistake in the Bill originally. The President of the Board of Trade gets up and says "I recommend" or "I do not recommend." If it is left at that everything goes on in a fair way, but we get no information at all. I want to know clearly why the right hon. Gentleman takes the point of view that he has expressed. What were the things that weighed in his mind when he took that point of view?

Major COLFOX: rose—

Mr. LEE: May I ask your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to whether this Amendment is not consequential upon an Amendment to which the House has already agreed, and which is in exactly the same terms?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): The Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment" has been put, and any hon. Member who wishes to take part in the discussion of that Question has a right to do so.

Major COLFOX: I think we ought to have some explanation from the President of the Board of Trade as to the meaning of the Amendment because apparently an error has been committed by somebody and the wrong word has been inserted in this Clause in the first instance. We ought to be told haw this word got into the Bill. I cannot see that it makes much difference which word is used, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that it does make a difference and he ought to explain it to us.

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 24, after the word "interests," insert "or is unfair or inequitable."

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This, of course, is the point which we discussed on a preceding Amendment. This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment with which the House has already dealt.

Commander KING: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in describing this as a consequential Amendment. The previous Amendment related to
any complaint made with respect to the operation of the scheme,
but the present Amendment goes beyond that point and relates to
any act or omission of any persons in respect of their functions under the scheme.
This is a question of a personal nature and does not relate simply to the operation of the scheme, and therefore I think there is a very strong case in this instance for inserting the words "or is unfair or inequitable." We wish to make sure that, in the case of any act or omission of anybody under the scheme, if it is unfair or inequitable to the individual making the complaint, the committee shall go into it and report to the Board of Trade. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether this is not a case in which it is even more important than in the previous case to ensure that nothing inequitable is done. We know that cases may occur in which an individual suffers without the public interest being affected and we wish to protect the individual in any claim that he may make. I was astounded to hear the right hon. Gentleman suggesting, as he did in effect, that the public interest should over-ride any question of fairness or equity to the individual. To my mind it is a preposterous suggestion that the Government, by Act of Parliament, should knowingly allow an injustice to be done to an individual without giving the individual the power to have his case represented to the Board of Trade. I know that the right hon. Gentleman said that if an individual made a complaint, whether it was against the public interest or not, the committee would have to report to the Board of Trade, but if he reads the wording of the Clause he will find that it says:
If a committee is of opinion that any provision of the scheme is contrary to the public interests it shall be the duty of the committee to report, etc.
He himself has told the House that, as long as the public interest is not affected, it makes no difference whether the individual is suffering unfair or inequitable treatment or not, and in such circumstances the matter shall not be
considered by the committee or reported to the Board of Trade. The wording of the Clause indicates that unless they find that the matter is against the public interest the committee is to make no report at all to the Board of Trade. Therefore, in order to safeguard the individual, I ask that the words inserted in another place should stand.

Mr. ATKINSON: If the President of the Board of Trade can say or think that this Amendment is consequential upon the previous Amendment it shows, if I may say so with the greatest respect, that he has not given any consideration to it, because the two things are as different as day and night. Sub-section (6) of the Clause deals with a case in which a committee is of opinion that any provision of the scheme is contrary to the public interest. We are not now dealing with the provisions of the scheme but with something quite different, namely,
any act or omission of any persons in respect of their functions under the scheme.
Again, under Sub-section (6) what the Committee have to do if they think that the public interest is being affected, is to report to the Board of Trade. But the right hon. Gentleman says that where an individual is affected we cannot set in motion all this machinery of a report to the Board of Trade and so on, and under this Sub-section there is no report to the Board of Trade at all. It is a totally different machinery. It provides that:
It shall be the duty of the committee to make representations with respect thereto to the persons having power under the scheme to rectify the matter.
There is no clumsy or complicated machinery in this part of the Clause but merely the provision that the committee should make representations to those who have power to rectify the matter. As the Clause stands, without the Amendment, the worst case of victimisation, the strongest case of individual hardship, cannot be put right at all. A case of that kind might arise, due, perhaps, to some personal enmity, or some breach of duty on the part of those who are exercising these functions, and such a case is seldom likely to affect the public interest. There might be a case where the people discharging these functions had not acted fairly between man and man.
Perhaps there has been a shortage of coal, and they have chosen to ensure that one industrial concern shall have large supplies while another is being started. One can conceive of an industrial undertaking getting large supplies of coal, and there may be an individual who cannot get the coal he wants, but under this Clause as it stands, without the Amendment put in by another place, he has no redress, because the committee of investigation can only act if anything done or omitted to be done is contrary to the public interest, however harsh or extreme a case of individual hardship may be, and they have no power even to make representations to the people who have power to put it right.
The Clause says that if, upon such representations being made, the matter is not dealt with to the satisfaction of the committee, the committee may refer it to a single independent arbitrator, but how can you arbitrate between the public interest and an individual case of hardship? Someone says, "I have been wrongly treated, and I can prove my case; I can prove that it is because certain people are not properly exercising their functions," but under the Bill there is no machinery provided to put that matter right, and unless you accept this Amendment you will destroy the whole purpose of the Sub-section and you will take away the last control you have on those who are carrying out their functions under this scheme. I can find no machinery whatever, from the first to the last line in the Bill, to cover this point.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: May I be allowed, very briefly, to intervene for the purpose of shortening the debate, if possible, by making a suggestion to hon. Members opposite? I hope I did not use the word "consequential" in error. I used it merely in the sense that we had had a discussion on what was substantially a similar point. My anxiety is to make perfectly sure that in this Clause, and in other Clauses, the public interest shall prevail. I am not sure that the words which have been recommended by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) are appropriate, but I am quite wiling to give this undertaking, that, subject to its being made perfectly clear that the public interest shall prevail, I will undertake in
another place, on this Sub-section (8), to try to find appropriate words, in consultation with hon. Members opposite.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to make this concession. I had risen, when the right hon. Gentleman intervened, to offer a few observations on this question, but I need not in the circumstances do more now than congratulate him most sincerely on having gone back from his error of saying that this was a consequential Amendment. We have been able to convince him during the last hour or two that there are some vitally unfair things in the Bill, and I am very glad that he has taken the action which he has just taken.

Sir H. SAMUEL: May we assume that what the right hon. Gentleman has said applies to the previous discussion also?

Mr. GRAHAM: That point is rather more difficult. There is a difference, which I should not be in order in going into, because that would be going back on the decision which the House has taken, but without making any promise with regard to the previous decision, I will see whether anything can be done, always subject to the public interest being safeguarded. The House must understand that I cannot at the moment make a definite promise on that point, but I do make the definite promise that I have already given regarding Sub-section (8), on the understanding that we now disagree with the Lords Amendment, that I will try to find appropriate words in its place.

Major COLFOX: I suppose we must infer that the endeavour of the President of the Board of Trade on this occasion will be to see that this committee protects private interests, although, as he says, he will take steps to ensure that the public interest comes first. As I read the Clause as at present drafted, private interest is not in any sense protected whatever, whether it be the interest of the consumer, of the distributor, or of anybody else. The only consideration in the Clause as drafted is the public interest, and I hope that we may assume that the undertaking which has just been given by the President of the Board of Trade will have the effect of protecting private interests as well as public interests.

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 5, at the end, insert the following new Sub-section:
(10) Any person aggrieved—

(a) by the neglect or refusal of a committee of investigation to report to the Board of Trade that any provision of a scheme is contrary to the public interests, or is unfair or inequitable in its operation, or where such a report has been made is aggrieved by any act or omission of the Board of Trade in relation thereto; or
(b) by the neglect or refusal of a committee of investigation to refer a complaint to arbitration under Sub-section (8) of this section;

may, with the leave of the Railway and Canal Commission, appeal to that Commission who shall have power to make such order as they think fit.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This proposed new Sub-section would open the door to an altogether impossible state of affairs. There are provided in the Bill various stages of arbitration which were described by the Attorney-General when dealing with this problem during the Committee stage. As regards the central scheme, there are the rights of arbitration for different districts; in the district schemes, there are the rights of arbitration open to the individual colliery owners; and, when we come down to the general public, there are in the committees of investigation the rights which we have just discussed, and the remedy of having this matter considered by the Board of Trade; and, in the last resort, there is the withdrawal of the statutory approval of the scheme and the putting in of another scheme by the Board of Trade if a remedy is not found. Under all these heads, the system of arbitration is quite complete for the purposes of the Bill. This proposed new Sub-section means that, notwithstanding all that machinery, any person who feels aggrieved may, if he get the leave of the Railway and Canal Commission, appeal to the Commission, which shall have power to make such order as they think fit. It may be argued that you cannot get through without the leave of the Railway and Canal Commission, and that
in 99 cases out of 100 nothing may come of it, but it is idle to add this machinery to the Bill when we have all the machinery that I have described, and to leave it open to anybody who can get support for some kind of grievance, and can get the sanction of the Railway and Canal Commission, to have the whole matter investigated after it has been fully considered by a committee of investigation, which exists for the express purpose of protecting the consumers' interest. This Amendment is quite unnecessary, and of a kind with which I could not invite the House to agree.

Commodore KING: I was amazed at the long list of remedies which the President of the Board told us that individuals would have if they felt aggrieved. It really sounded very impressive, but, if he reads this proposed new Sub-section, he will find that most of the remedies which he mentioned are dealt with. It is only on a committee of investigation refusing to give any of the remedies about which he has told us that the individual is to have the right of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission. Surely there is nothing very unreasonable in that. The President of the Board of Trade tells us that there is the procedure of going before a committee of investigation, and of that committee reporting to the Board of Trade; and this proposed new Sub-section provides that
Any person aggrieved by the neglect or refusal of a committee of investigation to report to the Board of Trade,
can appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission. We know that in practice every case in a court of first instance has a right of appeal; that is all that is being asked here, and it is only reasonable that a man who has the remedy taken away from him should, where the Railway and Canal Commission are willing, be able to put his grievance before them. The power of going to arbitration is another of the impressive remedies which the President details, and this proposed new Sub-section provides that a person can appeal against that privilege of going to arbitration being granted. The case which is visualised here is that of a man who has been refused by a committee of investigation to refer his complaint to arbitration. It is no good telling him that under the Act there is all the machinery to go to arbitration, and that
therefore he does not require this right of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission, when the very reason of his appeal is that he has been refused this arbitration which the President has mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to see that fair and just treatment is dispensed to everybody under this Bill; he does not wish people to be placed under a disadvantage, and we on this side of the House are anxious to see that as many precautions as possible are taken to see that they receive fair and equitable treatment throughout the whole of the machinery of this Bill.

Mr. ATKINSON: What we are considering is the case of a scheme contrary to the public interest, where a committee of investigation have had a complaint made to them and have declined to report. We have an impressive procedure for securing the protection of the public interest, and because it is so impressive, and because we want the public interest to be protected, we want this proposed new Sub-section. If the committee refuse to report, everything falls to the ground, and the public interest has no further protection, and if they refuse to appoint an arbitrator everything goes by the board, unless we have some such provision as is contained in this new Sub-section. All this impressive procedure does not become effective.
The whole point of this Amendment is that it is not alone concerned with some person aggrieved over a matter which particularly affects him, it must affect also the public interest and be a matter of great importance. It simply gives him the power to go to the Railway and Canal Commission to ask for leave to appeal, and if they think there is something in his contention they have power to give leave. All this has to be done by the applicant at his own expense. The Commission can only grant leave to appeal if it is a matter which they think is of public importance and demands further inquiry. The penalty of having to pay the costs will be a sufficient deterrent to prevent applicants coming forward on frivolous pretexts. Unless this right of appeal is given, all this impressive procedure goes by the board. In the Law Courts it is always regarded as an essential protection that there should be a right of appeal. When a case is before the court of first instance it may break down on some point, some matter
which has not been adequately expressed; and in this case also, where we are dealing with matters of public interest, there ought to be a chance of reopening the subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] This is an Amendment put forward with the idea of protecting the public's interest and of strengthening the procedure under the Bill.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I cannot help feeling that the President of the Board of Trade is possibly a little shy of Amendments moved from this side of the House, but in this case I feel that we can appeal to his sense of justice. I do not want to repeat arguments which have been put forward already, but I would like to add one small point, which is the result of my own experience, now not a short one. The knowledge that an aggrieved person can go to some superior court to point out that the tribunal before whom his case is being heard at title moment has gone wrong or has not done complete justice does a great deal to keep that tribunal on the right road and to keep it straight. I am certain that the President of the Board of Trade wishes the means provided for the protection of the public to be effective and desires that any member of the public who has gone to the committee of investigation should come away fully satisfied that his case has been properly heard. I beg him not to think that this Amendment will destroy any essential part of the Bill. Those of us who have remained silent through the long debates on the Bill have watched his conduct of it through the House with great admiration, and I beg of him to think that this Amendment will not destroy his work but will improve it and assist him in doing what he desires to do, namely, to see that the public are adequately protected.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I understood the President of the Board of Trade to say that it was not likely that any need of appeal would arise in, perhaps, more than one case out of 100. If that be so, surely we can claim that we are asking for is only a very small concession? I have no doubt that in 99 cases out of 100 the general public will be quite satisfied with the decision given by the committee. In any case the right hon. Gentleman is bound to assume that, otherwise there is all the more reason for having another
tribunal; but that is no reason why in the one case where it is desirable to appeal to a higher court such leave should not be granted. The average citizen likes to know that, if necessary, he can take his case to what is equivalent to the High Court, because the Railway and Canal Commission is a high court. He may never desire to make use of it, but he likes to know that the power exists. Although I think this right of appeal will seldom be exercised, it will be there as some kind of protection to the citizen, some kind of consolation.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think some of my hon. Friends on this side are too innocent for words. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) made an interesting and very able appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to accept this Amendment in the interests of justice. What hope had he in appealing to the President of the Board of Trade at the present time? Another hon. Member asked for a right of appeal because it would give a sense of security to the people. Appeals of that kind have been made to the President throughout the whole course of the proceedings on the Bill, and there is little or no hope of the request being granted. But there is another point of view which I am sure really will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. As far as I can see, there is no provision in the Bill for a foreign consumer to make any sort of appeal. This Bill is, quite clearly and quite definitely, the Magna Charta of the foreign consumer.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss the whole principle of the Bill on this Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was simply explaining why, on the arguments advanced up to the present, there can be no hope of getting the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, and I only wished to put forward one reason which might induce him to yield. However, it is almost impossible to expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, because it would insert in the Bill something which would give a sense of security to trade and industry in the country, particularly to those who are interested in the coal trade. However
eloquent may be the pleas of my hon. Friends, I am afraid anything that will give a sense of security to British trade will fall on deaf ears so far as the President of the Board of Trade is concerned.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 275: Noes, 87.

Division No. 340.]
AYES.
[9.25 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gossling, A. G.
Mansfield, W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gould, F.
March, S.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Markham, S. F.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marley, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Granville, E.
Mathers, George


Alpass, J. H.
Gray, Milner
Matters, L. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Arnott, John
Griffiths, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Melville, Sir James


Aske, Sir Robert
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Messer, Fred


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Middleton, G.


Ayles, Walter
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Millar, J. D.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mills, J. E.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Milner, Major J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Harbison, T. J.
Montague, Frederick


Batey, Joseph
Harbord, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bellamy, Albert
Hardie, George D.
Morley, Ralph


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Harris, Percy A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Benson, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Haycock, A. W.
Moses, J. J. H.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hayday, Arthur
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muff, G.


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bromfield, William
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Naylor, T. E.


Bromley, J.
Herriotts, J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brooke, W.
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brothers, M.
Hoffman, P. C.
Oldfield, J. R.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Hollins, A.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hopkin, Daniel
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Horrabin, J. F.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Burgess, F. G.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palin, John Henry


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Paling, Wilfrid


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Isaacs, George
Palmer, E. T.


Cameron, A. G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Perry, S. F.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Johnston, Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Charieton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Chater, Daniel
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pole, Major D. G.


Church, Major A. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Clarke, J. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Price, M. P.


Cluse, W. S.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pybus, Percy John


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kennedy, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Compton, Joseph
Kinley, J.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cove, William G.
Knight, Holford
Richards, R.


Cowan, D. M.
Lang, Gordon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Dallas, George
Lathan, G.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dalton, Hugh
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ritson, J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Romoril, H. G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawson, John James
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Devlin, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rowson, Guy


Dickson, T.
Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dukes, C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Duncan, Charles
Lees, J.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Ede, James Chuter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sanders, W. S.


Edge, Sir William
Lindley, Fred W.
Sandham, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Longbottom, A. W.
Scott, James


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longden, F.
Scrymgeour, E.


Elmley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Scurr, John


England, Colonel A.
Lowth, Thomas
Sexton, James


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Forgan, Dr. Robert
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sherwood, G. H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McElwee, A.
Shield, George William


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, V. L.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gibbins, Joseph
McKinlay, A.
Shinwell, E.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
McShane, John James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gill, T. H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Gillett, George M.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Sinkinson, George
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Thurtle, Ernest
West, F. R.


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Tillett, Ben
Westwood, Joseph


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Tinker, John Joseph
White, H. G.


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Toole, Joseph
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Tout, W. J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Snell, Harry
Townend, A. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Turner, B.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sorensen, R.
Vaughan, D. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Viant, S. P.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Stephen, Campbell
Walkden, A. G.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Walker, J.
Wise, E. F.


Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wallace, H. W.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Strauss, G. R.
Wallhead, Richard C.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Sullivan, J.
Watkins, F. C.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sutton, J. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)



Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


NOES.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Atkinson, C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Remer, John R.


Bracken, B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Buchan, John
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, R. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Christie, J. A.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colfox, Major William Philip
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Colville, Major D. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, Sir F.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Warrender, Sir Victor


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wayland, Sir William A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Long, Major Eric
Wells, Sydney R.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macquisten, F. A.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Womersley, W. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester)



Edmondson, Major A. J.
O'Connor, T. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Captain Wallace and Mr. C.




Williams.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Information obtained under Act not to be disclosed.)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 36, leave out from the word "who," to the word "shall," in line 37, and insert
discloses any information so obtained by him.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the Clause which deals with information obtained under the Act which has not to be disclosed, and it provides that any person who obtains any information in the exercise of the powers conferred upon the council shall be required to make a declaration of secrecy in such form as may be prescribed by the Board of Trade. The Clause would only apply to any person who acts in contravention
of any declaration which he has made, and the Lords propose to substitute the words "discloses any information so obtained by him."

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 4, leave out
under this part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think the House will agree that these words are altogether too wide, and in those circumstances I move to disagree with the Amendment.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 16, line 10, agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Constitution of Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 15, leave out Clause 11.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
We come now to one of the larger and important Amendments made in another place, and it may be for the convenience of the House if I deal, very briefly, with the proposals regarding amalgamation which have been made, as I have reason to think that that will shorten our proceedings on subsequent Amendments. Under the Bill as it left the House, we proceded to set up the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission who would be charged with the duty of formulating schemes for the amalgamation of collieries, subject to the conditions discussed during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. Under the Lords Amendment the Clauses relating to the establishment of that Commission are deleted, and in place of the Reorganisation Commission the duties are entrusted to the Board of Trade.
Let me make it perfectly plain that the compulsory powers were the same as under the Act of 1926, except that these Commissioners undertook the task of amalgamation, and the House of Lords has transferred that duty with the compulsory power included, from those Commissioners to the Board of Trade by abolishing the Commission. I must not be irrelevant in this debate, but, while the Board are very greatly flattered by the confidence with which it is proposed to entrust these duties to them, I am bound to say that this is a very remarkable proposal coming from a body of opinion always hostile, as I have understood, to anything savouring of bureaucratic control. The statutory Commissioners disappear and the Board of Trade is placed upon the throne with compulsory powers, subject however to one important consideration, that later on it is provided that a scheme will not be submitted to the Railway and Canal Commission unless there is one owner in a district prepared to proceed with it.
That proposal was expressly rejected by this House when it was considered on previous occasions, because, of course, there might be cases in which no owner
was willing to come forward publicly or declare in advance that he was sympathetic to amalgamation. In that state of affairs, we should be exactly in the position in which we were under the Act of 1926. Unless one owner was prepared to act, nothing could be done. We made it perfectly plain during the earlier proceedings that the amalgamation proposals in the Bill as it left the House guaranteed the initiative in the amalgamation, and that is an essential point. I need not enlarge upon the subject, because the proposal to abolish the Commissioners and transfer the duties to the Board of Trade subject to those considerations raises, of course, very large issues. I have already indicated to the House that, having committed ourselves to these amalgamation proposals, we propose to stand by them in the form in which they left this Chamber, and accordingly, without hesitation. I invite the House to disagree with this Amendment.

Commodore KING: This is one of the big changes which the House of Lords has made in the Bill which was presented to them. I was very glad to hear the President of the Board of Trade make it clear in his remarks that the Amendments we are now considering do not remove the compulsory amalgamation which was imposed when the Bill was before this House, and that they merely change the procedure which was laid down, I am afraid that I was never in favour of compulsory amalgamation, and I certainly have always had a great dread of this kind of reorganisation. It has been said that the procedure set up under this reorganisation of the coal industry is set up for the one object of allowing the Commission to go round the country to see in how many mines and in what areas they can bring about amalgamations.
Quite rightly, the coalowners in this country have become rather nervous of all these inquiries, commissions and so on that are being set up under this Bill. When we were discussing the Bill in its various stages in this House, I was one of those who, in any case where it was a question of the Board of Trade having to give any judgment or decision against the public, were in favour of setting up some judicial body; but I certainly would much sooner see the procedure proposed in this Amendment
of the House of Lords, and that, instead of this Reorganisation Commission going round the country seeing what amalgamations they could bring about, the responsibility should be thrown on the Board of Trade. In the first place, the Board of Trade has most of the information at its disposal. It has a great fund of information as to the likely mines that could usefully be amalgamated, and it would, I believe, use its powers with due discretion. It would not try to press forward amalgamations unless it thought that they were really useful and were going to be of some effect.
It is, however, a totally different matter when a Commission is set up for the one purpose of bringing about amalgamations. I think that any body set up in that way will feel bound to justify its existence, and will want to show something, not only for the work that it does, but for the amount of money which it is going to expend, and I believe that this Reorganisation Commission is likely to cost over £250,000. It is felt, and I feel it very strongly myself, that under these conditions such a body might put the industry to a great deal of inconvenience, and might upset it a great deal, by going round trying to bring about amalgamations which in the ordinary way would never be considered or brought into effect by the ordinary process of industrial demand, and which in the ordinary way would not be suggested if this duty were in the hands of the Board of Trade. Therefore, we feel that it is a sound suggestion that this Amendment should be maintained, and that the Reorganisation Commission should be done away with and the Board of Trade substituted in its place.
I do not wish, on any of these Amendments, to do more than just state the view which we hold in regard to them, but I noticed that the President of the Board of Trade went a little further than the mere question of the commissioners, and referred to other Amendments, with which we are not unfamiliar in this House, in regard to compulsion. The compulsory Clause, namely, Clause 13, goes a little away from the question of reorganisation being carried out, either by the Commission or by the Board of Trade, and we thoroughly agree that it would be more convenient to discuss the question of leaving out Clauses 11 and 12,
and the substitution of the Board of Trade, at the same time, but I should like to reserve our right to deal with the question of the compulsory Clauses and of laying it down that at least one owner should be willing, when we come to those Clauses. On the general question of substituting the Board of Trade for the Reorganisation Commission, this is an Amendment which we should certainly like to see remain.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The right hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Commodore King) has reminded us that the House of Lords has not cut out the provisions regarding compulsory amalgamation. In spite of all that was said in this House, by many hon. Members above the Gangway and behind me, in denunciation of the whole idea of compulsory amalgamation, of making these people combine who do not wish to combine, of throwing together the finances of companies that wish to be separate, nevertheless the House of Lords, very wisely, as I think, has retained in the Bill the principle of compulsion. But, while admitting the principle, the other House has inserted Amendments that would go far to make that principle futile, and this is one of them. It is quite clear, from the experience of the last few years, that what is needed above all in this matter of the organisation of the coal industry is initiative, drive, energy. It is quite true that here and there some of the leaders in the industry, far-sighted and energetic men, have taken steps to organise the industry into those larger units which the conditions of the time imperatively require; but the great majority of the mineowners have not done so, and, although amalgamations have made some progress, over the greater part of the industry they have not yet been effected; and, as a consequence, the Act passed by the Conservative administration in 1926, which was designed to favour amalgamations, and, in certain circumstances, to apply compulsion, has not achieved the results which the public interest requires.
Very largely, as we all know, there are personal difficulties, there is personal friction, there are personal interests which enter in among a group of mineowners and prevent them from bringing their enterprises into one whole, although economically it would be most desirable
that they should be unified. It is an old industry over the greater part of the country. Frequently those in charge of it are the grandsons or great-grandsons of the founders of the enterprise, and they find it very difficult to put aside their personal and family connections and sacrifice themselves in the interest of some reorganisation of the mines of their district. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be a body having the initiative, and, as I have said, the drive which the circumstances require, and that is why the Government were very wise, in our submission, to set up a reorganisation body, small and likely to be effective, whose prime duty it would be to undertake this particular task. The House of Lords has thrown back the whole of that duty upon the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade, a Minister, is to exercise these duties and to wield these powers of compulsion. Instead of a Commission, specially chosen, of experienced men, you are to have a political Minister, a Member of the Government of the day, who is to be given these very large powers.
What becomes of the denunciation of "The New Despotism"? What becomes of all the complaints that members of the Government are seeking to obtain more and more powers of bureaucratic control, of drawing into their own hands one function after another to tyrannise over the private citizen. Here we find the House of Lords and hon. Members above the Gangway proposing that this task shall not be given to an independent Commission specially erected for the purpose, but shall be made a political matter under the control of a Minister in the Government of the day. One particular drawback to that proposal would be that, instead of there being continuity of policy, and of the whole position of the mining industry being viewed scientifically by a body which over a period of years would carry out a definite policy, you may have violent reversals of policy in the administration of these matters with any change of Parliament or change of Government.
When the Royal Commission examined this matter they attached the greatest importance to this question of reorganisation. There are some who speak of it as though it were a personal fad of my own, but I was only one member of the Commission. All my colleagues, chosen
by the late Government, were unanimous on this point, and held very strong views in regard to it, and they recommended most emphatically that the main hope of the industry for the future was to be found in its reorganisation, as well as, to turn to another matter, in scientific research. All this will go by the board if this Amendment is accepted. Furthermore, the Clauses which it is proposed to strike out are the Clauses which give powers of inquiry to the Commission. Those powers are to go, and the Board of Trade is to be left with no adequate power of inquiry or investigation or obtaining information from the parties concerned. The President of the Board of Trade will be left, in effect, powerless. He will be in form omnipotent, but in fact powerless, face to face with any recalcitrant persons who are unwilling to adopt the measures that are needed in the public interest. The House of Lords agrees that the President of the Board of Trade should have a weapon placed in his hand and, having placed that weapon in his hand, they would tie his arms behind his back. I trust the House will support the Government in resisting the Amendment.

Colonel LANE FOX: The right hon. Gentleman very naturally defends the proposal which this Amendment tries to take out of the Bill. After all, it is the pup that he sold to the Government. When the Bill, the result of the combined wisdom of the Government and their advisers, was first in draft there was no proposal of this kind. It was merely one of the terms of negotiation between the Government and hon. Members below the Gangway. In the view of the Government at one period, there was no need for a proposal of this kind and I only hope, even at this late hour, they may be induced to go back to the original line of common sense. The right hon. Gentleman pours scorn on the proposal that the question should be left to the Board of Trade. All it means is that the Mines Department is going to deal with the matter in the same way that it has dealt with similar matters in the past. In the short time that has elapsed since the passing of the Act of 1926, considerable progress was being made, and still further progress was going to be made, which has been stopped by the unfortunate proposals in this Bill.
It is said the Mines Department has no power of inquiry, but it has a mass of facts, and it has power to find out the conditions of the various undertakings which is very complete, and I want to know why it is, if we are going to have a Mines Department, that the House does not trust it to take some action. You may say it has been ineffective in the past. Then strengthen it. With conditions working out in the coal industry as they are, everyone must see very grave danger ahead. This is not a time when industry is capable of sustaining the shocks which this roving commission will certainly mean.
I object to the whole idea of having this commission at all. Strengthen existing powers if you like, ginger up the Ministry of Mines as much as you like, use the powers you have to the full, but do not set up this autocratic commission of peripatetic busybodies who will be causing trouble wherever they go. I believe the original proposal of the Government was based on the advice they received from the experts, which was fully thought out after many months of consideration. I believe the Bill, which did not include this proposal, was a very much wiser method of procedure. It would be far better to scrap the proposal that has been foisted on them as a basis of negotiations with hon. Members below the Gangway and to return to the path of common sense and accept the Amendment.

10.0 p.m.

Captain BOURNE: I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) hardly did justice to my hon. Friend. We are not now faced with the question whether there shall or shall not be compulsory amalgamation. I dislike the whole idea of compulsory amalgamation and, if I could vote against it, I should, but that is not the question that is now facing the House. We quite understand the right hon. Gentleman urging the Government to resist the Amendment, because it is the proposal for which he was specially responsible and which was put into the Bill at his instigation. The question before the House is, admitting that we have to have compulsory amalgamation, is it better that it should be carried
out by a peripatetic commission or by the Board of Trade.
I strongly dislike bureaucracy, but I have a still stronger dislike to irresponsible bureaucracy. If amalgamation is to be forced on this unfortunate industry, I should at least prefer that it should be done by people who have knowledge of the industry, who have spent their lives in studying the business, rather than by a body of gentlemen, no matter how eminent, who are appointed ad hoc and who for this purpose are pure amateurs. That seems to me to be the question before the House. It is not whether we like the principle of amalgamation or not. It is whether we think a body of persons representing possibly several different points of view, and which in the end is bound to come to a compromise, is likely to make equally wise recommendations as the officials of the Mines Department who have acquired detailed knowledge of the conditions of the industry during their tenure of office. I object strongly to having my life governed by anyone but I would far rather have it governed by officials than by amateurs.
The scheme which the right hon. Gentleman was instrumental in forcing into the Bill, and which the Government did not introduce in the first instance, is far more likely to mean the management of a big industry by amateurs interfering with things they do not understand. A man may be a great success in managing a railway, or a trade union, or a big shop like Selfridge's, but that does not mean that he is competent to manage the coal industry. So far as I understand the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, we are going to put up a body of people, no doubt eminent men in their own walk of life but who have little or no experience of what is, after all, a very complicated industry. The right hon. Gentleman says personal feelings might come in and might make amalgamation difficult. Is not that one of the strongest arguments against amalgamation? If you amalgamate, people who may not get on very well together are being compelled to work together. We all know, whether in the House or in our private life, that nothing works so badly as a team of men who are forced together whether they like it or not, and who have to put up with each other's society whether they enjoy it or not. I have had
some experience of it, having had to run boat's crews for many years. If there was one thing we tried to avoid more than another, it was putting into a team someone who did not get on with the other men. If a man could not get on in sport, I imagine that he would get on far less successfully in industry. Faced with the problem of compulsory amalgamations, I think it is far better that we should leave it to the Board of Trade, and for that reason I object to the Government refusing this Amendment, and sincerely hope we shall go to a Division on the question.

Sir TUDOR WALTERS: The point at issue between us is not whether we shall or shall not have compulsory amalgamations. The other House has not deleted that provision. The real issue the House has to consider is, whether we shall have effective amalgamations or ineffective amalgamations. The complaint made by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) is that the Commission appointed would be amateurs, and that the civil servants would be professional exponents with an expert knowledge of the coal trade. Can anything be more ludicrously inaccurate than such a description? Civil servants are a very fine body of men, but they are not experts in the coal trade. The civil servants in the Mines Department are not men who have practical knowledge of the working of the coal trade. It is absolutely certain that any body of commissioners appointed would have to be men possessed of experience of the various aspects of the question—the financial, the engineering, the technical and the administrative aspects. A body of commissioners of this description would be far more able to deal with a technical examination of the various problems which concerned them than any body of civil servants, however able they might be.
I suggest, with great respect to the other House, that perhaps one object for the alteration which they have suggested is the vain hope that they may in some way delay the carrying out of amalgamations. They realise that if proposals can be passed from a body of men appointed for the purpose of getting something done to a body of civil servants under political control, in a change of Government a time might come when
these proposals might be allowed to lay dormant. It is a mistake to assume that this proposal is entirely due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). We on these benches believe these amalgamations to be essential to the economical working of the coal trade. If we are to have a reduction of hours to 7½ hours and later on to 7 hours, without excessive increase of the cost of coal to the consumer, something must be done to lower the cost of production and to secure a more efficient system of management. I have had some considerable experience in the coal trade, and I believe that the only hope for cheap coal is that there should be amalgamations of the collieries, that inefficient collieries should be closed down, and that the output of the economic collieries should be obtained in sufficient volume. Amalgamation, economy of administration and better working of the pits which are kept alive constitute the only hope of cheap coal.
I am convinced that it is only by appointing a competent body of commissioners, who shall devote their time and attention to the question and examine the subject in all its aspects, that you can secure a really effective system of amalgamation, and only in that way can you save the coal trade from being burdened by excessive costs of production. I strongly urge the Government to resist this Amendment. With great respect to the other House, this appears to be a delaying and wrecking Amendment. If we are to have amalgamation at all, let it be done under efficient control, let broad views he taken and let the real reorganisation of the industry be the object we have in view.

Major COLVILLE: We on these benches have become accustomed to the spectacle of representatives of His Majesty's Government spending large sums of money. It is surprising that this already overtaxed and overburdened country should be asked to find a sum of £250,000 to start such an entirely new and superfluous service as proposed in the Bill. The committee which is being set up is one of professional amalgamators, whose business it will be to go round and coerce into union those who are to make their living out of the trade and who have not themselves, out of their own business knowledge and their
own knowledge of the facts, thought it necessary to bring about such union. We on these benches believe that the atmosphere of uncertainty which will be created by this board of whole-time amalgamators will be such as will react against the coal trade as a whole. We believe that the atmosphere of uncertainty would be, to some extent, removed if this Amendment were adopted, and the Board of Trade were given power to deal with the matter, instead of a board set up specially for the purpose. The members of the board would have to justify their appointment and their salaries by moving about, and, I believe, prying into businesses and causing uncertainty and thereby increasing unemployment. I do not think it is entirely a matter of coincidence that since this Bill passed through the House the coal trade in this country has declined. I know that there have been other world causes, but I also know that there has been this decline in the country since the terms of the Bill became thoroughly understood.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be developing his argument on the general question of the whole Bill.

Major COLVILLE: I was leading up to this point, that of all the provisions in the Bill calculated to cause uncertainty, the appointment of this board of whole-time amalgamators is the worst, and for that reason I warmly support the Amendment made by the Lords that the amalgamations should be carried out by the Board of Trade. At an earlier stage in the debates in this House there was an Amendment to the effect that the reorganisation commissioners should always sit in London. I supported that Amendment. The reason given by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was that he wished them to sit at the capital city. That was not the reason why I supported the proposal. I supported it because I come from Scotland, and I believe that, in the interests of the Scottish coal trade, these amalgamators should be as far away from Scotland as possible. I cannot see anything but mischief arising out of their proposals. It has often been suggested that it is necessary to amalgamate interests in order to produce good results. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir
H. Samuel) quoted the case of the Ruhr and the result of amalgamations in the Ruhr. There are other districts which compare very favourably in the matter of cost. Last year the cost of production in the Ruhr was 14s. 1d. per ton and in Scotland 12s. 6d. a ton, while in Scotland there are 1,600 coal cutters at work as against 1,300 coal cutters in the Ruhr.

Mr. WESTWOOD: On a point of Order. Are we really discussing the cutting out altogether of amalgamations, or merely the board which will carry through the amalgamations?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are discussing at the moment whether it shall be the Board of Trade or the particular body being set up under the Bill which should carry out amalgamations.

Major COLVILLE: The point at issue is the degree of compulsion that is going to be applied to secure these amalgamations.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. SPEAKER: The House is not considering whether there shall be amalgamations or not, but who shall be the body to carry them out.

Major COLVILLE: When we are discussing the question of amalgamation, are we not entitled to discuss the results that will accrue from the change that is proposed to be made, in that the House of Lords have recommended a particular course.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would not be in order on this Amendment.

Major COLVILLE: Then I am not allowed to develop the argument on that point. A close examination of the position has convinced those who are engaged in the coal trade that the change which we suggest is in the interests of the coal trade as a whole. The President of the Board of Trade referred to Scotland tonight—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must not pursue that line of argument.

Major COLVILLE: In Scotland they have held a meeting and have definitely agreed that they would prefer to have the amalgamations in the hands of the Board of Trade rather than in the hands of the Commission, as proposed originally. I
am entitled, I think, to make that point. I am certain that not only in Scotland but all over the country where those engaged in the industry and those who have to work in the industry have been consulted, they prefer this change to be made. I, therefore, support the

Amendment. I trust that the Government will reconsider the position and see their way to accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 125.

Division No. 341.]
AYES.
[10.16 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gill, T. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gillett, George M.
Lowth, Thomas


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gossling, A. G.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Gould, F.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Alpass, J. H.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McElwee, A.


Ammon, Charles George
Granville, E.
McEntee, V. L.


Arnott, John
Gray, Milner
McKinlay, A.


Aske, Sir Robert
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
McShane, John James


Ayles, Walter
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mansfield, W.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
March, S.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Markham, S. F.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marley, J.


Bellamy, Albert
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mathers, George


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Harbison, T. J.
Matters, L. W.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Harbord, A.
Maxton, James


Benson, G.
Hardie, George D.
Melville, Sir James


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Harris, Percy A.
Messer, Fred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Middleton, G.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Millar, J. D.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Haycock, A. W.
Milner, Major J.


Bowen, J. W.
Hayday, Arthur
Montague, Frederick


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hayes, John Henry
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morley, Ralph


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Brooke, W.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Brothers, M.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Herriotts, J.
Mort, D. L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Moses, J. J. H.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hoffman, P. C.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Buchanan, G.
Hollins, A.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Burgess, F. G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Muff, G.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Horrabin, J. F.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Naylor, T. E.


Cameron, A. G.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cape, Thomas
Isaacs, George
Noel Baker, P. J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Oldfield, J. R.


Charieton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Chater, Daniel
Johnston, Thomas
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Church, Major A. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Clarke, J. S.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palin, John Henry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Palmer, E. T.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Compton, Joseph
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Perry, S. F.


Cove, William G.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Daggar, George
Kennedy, Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Dallas, George
Kinley, J.
Pole, Major D. G.


Dalton, Hugh
Knight, Holford
Potts, John S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Price, M. P.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lang, Gordon
Pybus, Percy John


Dickson, T.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Quibell, D. F. K.


Dukes, C.
Lathan, G.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Duncan, Charles
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Ede, James Chuter
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Richards, R.


Edge, Sir William
Lawrence, Susan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lawson, John James
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Elmley, Viscount
Leach, W.
Ritson, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Romeril, H. G.


Foot, Isaac
Lees, J.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rowson, Guy


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lindley, Fred W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Gibbins, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Longden, F.
Sanders, W. S.


Sandham, E.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Sawyer, G. F.
Sorensen, R.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Scott, James
Stamford, Thomas W.
Watkins, F. C.


Scrymgeour, E.
Stephen, Campbell
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Scurr, John
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Sexton, James
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wellock, Wilfred


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Strauss, G. R.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Sherwood, G. H.
Sullivan, J.
West, F. R.


Shield, George William
Sutton, J. E.
Westwood, Joseph


Shillaker, J. F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
White, H. G.


Shinwell, E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Simmons, C. J.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Tillett, Ben
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sinkinson, George
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sitch, Charles H.
Toole, Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Tout, W. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Townend, A. E.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wise, E. F.


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Turner, B.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Vaughan, D. J.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Viant, S. P.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Walkden, A. G.



Snell, Harry
Walker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wallace, H. W.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Paling.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Atkinson, C.
Ferguson, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Fielden, E. B.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Balniel, Lord
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Beaumont, M. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gower, Sir Robert
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bird, Ernest Roy
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remer, John R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Bracken, B.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Briscoe, Richard George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks Newb'y)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buchan, John
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, R. A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Savery, S. S.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Chapman, Sir S.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Christie, J. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Colville, Major D. J.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, Sir F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wells, Sydney R.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Long, Major Eric
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macquisten, F. A.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Womersley, W. J.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Makins, Brigadier-General E.



Eden, Captain Anthony
Marjoribanks, E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Warrender.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(General functions of Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission.)

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 12.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This has been covered by the decision that the House has just taken.

CLAUSE 13.—(Amendments of Part I of 16 and 17 Geo. 5, c. 28.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 25, leave out "Coal Mines Reorganisation
Commission," and insert "Board of Trade."

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 18, line 40, disagreed with.

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 41, leave out the words "and submit."

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I wish for an explanation of the reason why we should disagree with this Amendment. I agree that there would be no reason for preparing a report unless it was to be submitted to a certain body, but on matters of importance such as are indicated here it is only right that the House as a whole should have some explanation from the President of the Board of Trade of the reasons why this Amendment should not be agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 18, line 43, disagreed with.

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 4, after the word "that," insert:

"(a) no scheme prepared under this section shall be referred to the Railway and Canal Commission unless the owner of at least one undertaking proposed to be amalgamated or absorbed by the scheme assents to the scheme being so referred;
(b)"

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is also covered by the explanation which I have already given to the House. It turns on the point of a single owner's assent to the reference of

a scheme to the Railway and Canal Commission, and in our view that would destroy the guarantee of initiative under the Bill.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not propose to argue this point at length because it was argued when the Bill was in the Committee stage, and for my own part I am content to adopt in extenso the very admirable arguments on this subject which were advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) in his criticism of these proposals. The right hon. Gentleman, than whom no one has greater experience of successful business administration and successful amalgamation, laid it down, and I respectfully agree with him, that successful amalgamation and the successful conduct of business generally depends very largely on having people who are willing to conduct a business with a belief in the success of the business. I venture to think that there is no man in the House with any experience of business who would not agree to the soundness of that principle. I merely put this question to hon. Members. If the Board of Trade propounds an amalgamation scheme which no single owner of those to be amalgamated is ready or willing to work, which no single owner thinks will be successful, and if the Board of Trade do so, while taking no financial responsibility for the amalgamation which they seek to promote, then I would ask—and this is the test—which hon. Member opposite would put his own money or the money of his trade union into such an amalgamation?

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 281, Noes, 130.

Division No. 342.]
AYES.
[10.33 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Brothers, M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bellamy, Albert
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Aitchinon, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Benson, G.
Buchanan, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Burgess, F. G.


Amman, Charles George
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Arnott, John
Birkett, W. Norman
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)


Aske, Sir Robert
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Caine, Derwent Hall-


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bowen, J. W.
Cameron, A. G.


Ayles, Walter
Broad, Francis Alfred
Cape, Thomas


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bromfield, William
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bromley, J.
Charieton, H. C.


Barnes, Alfred John
Brooke, W.
Chater, Daniel


Church, Major A. G.
Lambert, Rt. Han. George (S. Molton)
Romeril, H. G.


Clarke, J. S.
Lang, Gordon
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lathan, G.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Compton, Joseph
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Cove, William G.
Lawrence, Susan
Sanders, W. S.


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Sandham, E.


Dallas, George
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Leach, W.
Scott, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Scrymgeour, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Scurr John


Dickson, T.
Lees, J.
Sexton, James


Dukes, C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Duncah, Charles
Lindley, Fred W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Ede, James Chuter
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shield, George William


Edge, Sir William
Longbottom, A. W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Edmunds, J. E.
Longden, F.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Simmons, C. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Lowth, Thomas
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sinkinson, George


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sitch, Charles H.


Foot, Isaac,
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
McElwee, A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gibbins, Joseph
McShane, John James
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snell, Harry


Gill, T. H.
Mansfield, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gossling, A. G.
Marcus, M.
Sorensen, R.


Gould, F.
Markham, S. F.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marley, J.
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mathers, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Granville, E.
Matters, L. W.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gray, Milner
Maxton, James
Strauss, G. R.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Melville, Sir James
Sullivan, J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Messer, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Middleton, G.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Groves, Thomas E.
Millar, J. D.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tillett, Ben


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morley, Ralph
Tinker, John Joseph


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Toole, Joseph


Harbison, T. J.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Tout, W. J.


Harbord, A.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Townend, A. E.


Hardie, George D.
Mort, D. L.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Harris, Percy A.
Moses, J. J. H.
Turner, B.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernoh
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Vaughan, D. J.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Viant, S. P.


Haycock, A. W.
Muff, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Hayday, Arthur
Muggeridge, H. T.
Walker, J.


Hayes, John Henry
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wallace, H. W.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Watkins, F. C.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oldfield, J. R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Herriotts, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hollins, A.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
West, F. R.


Horrabin, J. F.
Palin, John Henry.
Westwood, Joseph


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Paling, Wilfrid
White, H. G.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palmer, E. T.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Perry, S. F.
Whiteley, William (Blayden)


Isaacs, George
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pole, Major D. G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Johnston, Thomas
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Price, M. P.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pybus, Percy John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wise, E. F.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Richards, R.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Kennedy, Thomas
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kinley, J.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Knight, Holford
Ritson, J.
Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)


Albery, Irving James
Atkinson, C.
Balniel, Lord




Beaumont, M. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
O'Connor, T. J.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gault, Lieut.-Col, Andrew Hamilton
Peake, Captain Osbert


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gower, Sir Robert
Ramsbotham, H.


Bracken, B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brass, Captain Sir William
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Briscoe, Richard George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Remer, John R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Butler, R. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hammersley, S. S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Haslam, Henry C.
Savery, S. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Chapman, Sir S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Christie, J. A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colman, N. C. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Colville, Major D. J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thomson, Sir F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalkeith, Earl of
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Locker-Sampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wells, Sydney R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Long, Major Eric
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Macquisten, F. A.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Eden, Captain Anthony
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Making, Brigadier-General E.



Elliot, Major Walter E.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Sir George Penny and Captain


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wallace.


Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 19, line 10, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 11, at the end, insert
(c) no coal mine belonging to a company whereof all the shares are held by the owner of an undertaking of which the primary object is not coal-mining shall, so long as it is worked as ancillary to such primary object, be amalgamated or absorbed by virtue of a scheme prepared under this section without the consent of the owner of that undertaking.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This requires a word of explanation. On the top of page 19 of the Bill there is a proviso
that no such scheme of amalgamation shall provide, without the consent of the owner of the undertaking, for the separation of the treating and disposing of coal from the working thereof, or, in the case of an undertaking of which the primary object is not coal-mining, for the separation from the undertaking of any coal mine worked as ancillary for such primary object.
That was agreed when we were in the Committee stage, and the House of Lords proposed to insert an addition which will now rank as paragraph (c), which simply refers to an undertaking in which all the shares are hold by another undertaking. In the one case it is definitely attached, and in the other it is a legally separate entity, but the shares are held by the other undertaking, and it is plain that an undertaking in that position should be in the same position as one which is covered in the proviso at the top of page 19.

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 11, at the end, insert the following new Sub-section:
(2) In the consideration by the Railway and Canal Commission of a scheme prepared by the Board of Trade under this section the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (2) of section seven of the Act of 1926 (which relates to consideration of schemes by the Commission):—
'(a) shall not confirm a scheme unless satisfied—

(i) that it would be in the national interest to do so, and
2305
(ii) in the case of an amalgamation scheme that the scheme

(a) will result in lowering the cost of production or disposal of coal, and
(b) will not be financially injurious to any of the undertakings proposed to be amalgamated, unless the scheme contains provisions for the purchase, at a price to be fixed in default of agreement by arbitration, of any such undertaking; and

(iii) that the terms of the scheme are fair and equitable to all persons affected thereby; and.'"

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Under the Act of 1926, which is continued subject to the compulsory provisions of the coal mines reorganisation scheme, it is the duty of the Railway and Canal Commission to have regard to whether a scheme is in the national interest in the first place, and, in the next place, whether it is fair and equitable among the parties affected. The Amendment which has been inserted by another place quite clearly goes well beyond the provisions of the Act of 1926, because hon. Members will observe that under paragraph (a) of the Amendment, the scheme must
result in lowering the cost of production or disposal of coal,
and under paragraph (b) it is not to be:
Financially injurious to any of the undertakings proposed to be amalgamated, unless the scheme contains provisions for the purchase, at a price to be fixed in default of agreement by arbitration, of any such undertaking.
The first point there is covered by the existing direction to the Railway and Canal Commission as to whether the scheme is to the public interest, and the second point is covered by the direction as to whether it is fair and equitable among the parties. To insert this Amendment in the Bill would go well beyond the provisions of the Act of 1926, or which our predecessors in office were responsible, and would make it very difficult, if not impossible, in some cases for the amalgamation to be effective.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: At an earlier stage this evening we had a very long debate on something which the President of the Board of Trade said at first was unnecessary and then was covered. We found that it was not unnecessary and it certainly was not
covered, and from all quarters an appeal was made to him to meet the position which then arose. This Amendment is one of considerable importance. We now have established that the Board of Trade, through the instrumentality of its peripatetic commissioners, may propose any amalgamation of collieries to the Railway and Canal Commission, notwithstanding the fact that not a single coal owner concerned is anxious or, indeed, willing to conduct the combined business. We now propose in this Amendment that the Railway and Canal Commission shall not approve of a scheme of that kind unless, first of all, it is in the national interest, and secondly, that it will result in lowering the cost of production or disposal of coal and will not be financially injurious to any of the undertakings concerned, or, if it be financially injurious to them, that they shall be bought out at a price to be settled by arbitration.
I should have thought that those were very fair and reasonable proposals to put into an amalgamation scheme. I have had experience of conducting negotiations for amalgamations, and I do not think those of us who have had such experience have ever gone into an amalgamation proposal, at least with any prospect of carrying it through, unless we were satisfied that the conditions laid down were conditions which we should be able to satisfy our partners were certain to be equitable. What is the answer of the President of the Board of Trade? It is a two-fold answer, and each answer destroys the other. In the first place, he says, "I cannot accept the Amendment, because it goes beyond the Act of 1926." That is his first objection. His second answer is, "I do not accept your proposal, because it is already covered by the Act of 1926." I listened very carefully and understood that was his argument.
Let me take the items in turn. I certainly understood him to say that and I think he really did say it, because I took it down. He said it went beyond the Act of 1926, and, therefore, the House ought not to be asked to accept it, and a little later on he said it was quite unnecessary, because it was already covered by the provisions in the Act of 1926. He said it was covered by the terms "fair and equitable." If it goes beyond the Act of 1926, it cannot be covered, and,
equally, if it goes beyond the Act of 1926, so does his own proposal. The Act of 1926 assumes willing owners or, at any rate, one willing owner coming forward to promote schemes in which he is willing to take financial responsibility. That is the most extreme case. Otherwise it contemplates a number of willing owners who go into partnership.
The President of the Board of Trade proposes to go a great deal further than that, and to force amalgamation upon unwilling owners. I appeal to the House. Are these terms unreasonable to be applied when you are forcing a number of unwilling people into amalgamations? What is the first? It is that the scheme should be in the national interest. That is common ground between us, because unless it is in the national interest, the Railway and Canal Commissioners would have no jurisdiction to entertain it, or, at any rate, to approve it. What is the second? It is that the amalgamation scheme will result in lowering the cost of production or disposal of coal. What is the objection of the President of the Board of Trade to that? I thought the whole object of his scheme, as introduced by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and accepted by the right hon. Gentleman more or less under duress, was that the cost of production or disposal of coal was going to be so lowered by these amalgamation schemes that the consumer would not have to pay any more, and the miner would enjoy larger wages and shorter hours. That is the whole object of these schemes. If amalgamation imposed upon a number of unwilling owners does not give better production and cheaper coal, what earthly justification have you for putting all these people to this expense and forcing them into amalgamation?
I ask the President of the Board of Trade this specific question. Does he or does he not propose to submit a scheme to the Railway and Canal Commissioners unless he is satisfied that that scheme will reduce the cost of producing coal or the cost of disposal of coal? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put forward a scheme, or to allow a scheme to be put forward unless he is satisfied that it will result in lowering the cost of production or disposal of coal? It is for the President of the Board of Trade to
answer that question when he is inviting the House to disagree with an Amendment which appears to me to be thoroughly reasonable. If this was not done in 1926, it was not done because the 1926 Act contemplated willing people, and here you are dealing with unwilling people.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would the right hon. Gentleman embody in a Measure of compulsory amalgamation the suggestion which he now asks my right hon. Friend to adopt?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Absolutely. I should never have asked for compulsory powers which did not contain that suggestion. In one breath the President of the Board of Trade tells us that this point is covered, and in another breath he contradicts that statement. I say that I would not have asked for compulsory powers without giving such an undertaking and laying down those conditions. [Interruption.] Perhaps we shall come to the conclusion of this debate much quicker if I am allowed to proceed without being interrupted. I would certainly not have proposed that you should force owners, much less unwilling owners, into an amalgamation unless I could satisfy the tribunal that was to be my judge that such amalgamation would result in the lowering of the cost of production or disposal of coal. I ask whether under this scheme the right hon. Gentleman proposes to submit schemes to the Railway and Canal Commission or to allow that Commission to suggest amalgamations which do not do that? If the answer is that he will not submit a scheme unless he is satisfied that it fulfils these conditions, he ought to put these conditions into the Bill. There can be no possible objection to his doing that, and the House of Lords were perfectly right to put them in. If, on the other hand, the President of the Board of Trade is going to propose amalgamations which he cannot satisfy a tribunal will reduce the cost of production or disposal of coal, then we are going to have amalgamations for the sake of the name of amalgamation, which is just about as futile a thing as could be done. The right hon. Gentleman must accept one of two things. If he is going to force amalgamations through which cannot serve the public interest by reducing
costs, we know where we are. If that be not his intention, let him put his intention into the Bill.
11.0 p.m.
I come to the third proposal, that you ought not to propose an amalgamation, or the Railway and Canal Commission ought not to sanction an amalgamation, even though it is in the public interest, if it is unfair to the parties concerned, unless you are prepared to buy them out. Is that accepted, or is it not? If it is, let it be put plainly in the Bill. If it is not, then I say that a gross injustice is being done. Let me take an example. I do not confine myself to coal mines, and one is not entitled to do so on a great question like this. Go into the shipping industry if you like. I can well conceive that it might be in the public interest that two shipping lines should be amalgamated. They might be able to run a better service. But one of them may be a line with heavy liabilities upon it, which is carried on to-day either at a heavy loss or, at the best, a bare margin of profit. On the other side you may have a line of great efficiency, with large reserves, and admirably managed. It may well be possible even that their ships sail to the same ports, and it may be said that it is in the national interest that they should be amalgamated. On what terms would you propose to amalgamate them? Would you propose to say that these two lines should be forced into an amalgamation in the public interest, although the efficient and successful line will suffer a loss of hundreds of thousands of pounds in consequence? The same is true of coal. Where there is one undertaking that is very successful and profitable, it may be in the national interest that it should amalgamate with two or three other concerns, but by being amalgamated its financial position may be gravely weakened, and its chance of obtaining dividends in the future may be destroyed.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): You would destroy competition.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Destroy competition? What are you doing? That is really an intervention which is not worthy of the Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman had better read this Bill and see how much competition will be left after it goes through. It is a Bill, not
only to destroy competition, but to make it a penal offence to compete. [Interruption.] I understood that I was asked if I wished to destroy competition. What the President of the Board of Trade is proposing to do is to force amalgamation. Does he propose to force amalgamation where it would be to the financial detriment of one of the parties? If he does propose that, does he not think that in common justice, if it is in the national interest and if the court finds that the terms are unfair, that party which will be damnified should be bought out as a term of the amalgamation? These are the proposals which are contained in this Amendment, and I ask the House whether every one of them is not absolutely fair and reasonable, and a proposal which any Member of this House doing a business deal with another man in a honest manner would insist on having carried out? If that be true, I ask why we should not in legislation, and very unnecessary legislation at that, adopt at any rate that standard of morality which every one of us would insist upon in our business relations?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I ask leave to make a few observations on the case which has been presented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister). He says that there are four proposals here which ought to be embodied in the Bill. I take it that the provisions of the Act of 1926 are imported into the Bill already. If I am wrong, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will correct me, but it seems pretty clear from Clause 13 that all of these schemes must be schemes under Part I of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, and that the provisions of that Act are imported into this Bill as though they were re-enacted here. The first of the four points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman is that a scheme ought not to be confirmed unless it is in the national interest to do so. That is in the Act of 1926. The second is that the amalgamation scheme shall result in lowering the cost of production or disposal of coal. That is a very difficult matter to define. More suitable language would be, "If the commission were satisfied that it is expedient for the purpose of promoting the more economical and efficient working, treating or disposal of coal." That, I think, is what the right hon. Gentleman really has in mind. It
is much the same wording, but would be much more easy for the commission to apply. Those are the first words of Clause 13 (1) and, in emphasising this point, my right hon. Friend must have overlooked the fact that this very point is embodied in the legislation before us.
The third point is that the scheme will not be financially injurious to
any of the undertakings proposed to be amalgamated unless the scheme contains provisions for the purchase and fixing of prices by arbitration,
and so forth. There, again, the actual wording of the provision would be extremely difficult to apply. When you say it is not to be financially injurious to any undertaking, suppose a mining undertaking, like any other, is in difficulties. It is overcapitalised. In order to promote the prosperity of the whole group of mines the capital of one has to be written down, perhaps drastically. Is that to be regarded as financially injurious or not? One can understand that the case might be taken into Court if these words were imported into the Act, and very great difficulties might arise. What you really want to provide is that any scheme should be fair and equitable to all the persons affected thereby. That is the fourth provision here, and that is already in the Act of 1926, and is, therefore, imported into the Bill. Those very words are in the Act of 1926 for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible:
provide that the commission shall confirm the scheme if they are satisfied that it would be in the national interest to do so, and that the terms of the scheme are fair and equitable to all persons affected thereby.
In these circumstances, it appears that the Amendment is unnecessary.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: May I ask why, if the whole of this is covered by the words of the Act of 1926, the President of the Board of Trade said he cannot accept this, because it went beyond the Act of 1926?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The drafting of this is very inferior to that of the right hon. Gentleman.

Captain PEAKE: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying Sub-section (2), which provides that the Railway and Canal Commissioners must be
satisfied that the scheme will result in lowering the cost of production or disposal of coal is covered by the provision in the Bill—the purpose of promoting more economical and efficient working, treating or disposal of coal. That provision is a thing of which the reorganisation commissioners must be satisfied.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I did not say the Railway and Canal Commissioners.

Captain PEAKE: The Railway and Canal Commissioners are a judicial tribunal. Witnesses can appear and be cross-examined. The reorganisation commissioners will work in the dark. How are we to have a test whether they have satisfied themselves that these grounds have been fulfilled? The President of the Board of Trade says it is unnecessary for the Railway and Canal Commissioners to be satisfied that the cost of production of coal would be lowered, because he says that is already covered by the provision that the scheme must be in the national interest. I have sat many a time in the Railway and Canal Commission and heard the present Lord Chancellor say, when these combinations of coalowners reached a certain size, beyond that size he was not prepared to say combinations would be in the national interest, because the consumer might suffer. Although the amalgamation may reduce the cost of production of coal, yet he would not be prepared to say it was in the national interest. The two things are by no means the same. The onus is upon those who have urged this principle of compulsory amalgamation to satisfy the court that the cost of production is going to be lowered. The whole case of compulsory amalgamation rests upon the fact that the cost of production will be lowered. That was the case put forward by Sir Arthur Duckham. The report of Sir Arthur Duckham was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to be the best report upon amalgamations. That is a very poor compliment to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), because the report of Sir Arthur Duck-ham is compressed into less than half a page, whereas the report of the right hon. Gentleman covers chapters and chapters.

Sir H. SAMUEL: On many other subjects.

Captain PEAKE: I think it is essential that samething of this sort should be inserted in the Bill. I can assure the President of the Board of Trade that, unless the amalgamation reduces the cost of production, it will be of no use whatever. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) said: "Why stop at the coal industry? Why not extend it to agriculture, for instance?" The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) always bolsters up his arguments by referring to the German coal fields and pointing out that the size of the units there is far bigger than here. You might as well say that our farming is all wrong because in South Africa farms are larger. You can easily point to farms in Denmark and say that as they are only one-third of the size of the farms in this country that therefore Danish farms are not so good as farms in this country. The mere size of the unit has nothing to do with the question. What we want is efficiency, and that is what the Amendment aims at. Unless we can get a safeguard of this sort, or a safeguard of some description the coal trade will have bitter cause for regretting its connection with the right hon. Member for Darwen, from whom these proposals come. To-day it is exceedingly difficult to get new capital for the coal industry. Who is going to lend,

advance or invest a penny in the coal industry if there is no security either that the concern in which the investment is made is going to remain the same for a month or that these people in whom the investor has some confidence because of their judgment are going to remain in that concern for a month? I press upon the right hon. Gentleman the urgent necessity of embodying some sort of qualification of this kind which will provide that the amalgamation will do something to promote the more efficient working of coal. That is a thing which it will be able to decide by cross-examination before the Railway and Canal Commission.

Major COLFOX: I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question. What is the object of any of these amalgamation schemes if it is not to produce the result of lowering the cost of production or disposal of coal? All these suggestions of amalgamation are absolutely useless and worthless unless they have that as their object. If he will answer by saying that that is their object, then why does he refuse to include this paragraph in the Bill? Unless he can say that, his objection to the Amendment is futile.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 122.

Division No. 343.]
AYES.
[11.14 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Elmley, Viscount


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Buchanan, G.
England, Colonel A.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Burgess, F. G.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Foot, Isaac


Alpass, J. H.
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Forgan, Dr. Robert


Ammon, Charles George
Cameron, A. G.
Freeman, Peter


Arnott, John
Cape, Thomas
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Aske, Sir Robert
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Charieton, H. C.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Ayles, Walter
Chater, Daniel
Gibbins, Joseph


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Church, Major A. G.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)


Barnes, Alfred John
Clarke, J. S.
Gill, T. H.


Batey, Joseph
Cluse, W. S.
Gillett, George M.


Bellamy, Albert
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gossling, A. G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gould, F.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Cove, William G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Benson, G.
Daggar, George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Dallas, George
Granville, E.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Dalton, Hugh
Gray, Milner


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bowen, J. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Dickson, T.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bromfield, William
Dukes, C.
Groves, Thomas E.


Bromley, J.
Duncan, Charles
Grundy, Thomas W.


Brooke, W.
Ede, James Chuter
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Brothers, M.
Edge, Sir William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Edmunds, J. E.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Markham, S. F.
Shield, George William


Harbison, T. J.
Marley, J.
Shillaker, J. F.


Marbord, A.
Mathers, George
Shinwell, E.


Hardie, George D.
Matters, L. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Harris, Percy A.
Maxton, James
Simmons, C. J.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Melville, Sir James
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Messer, Fred
Sinkinson, George


Haycock, A. W.
Middleton, G.
Sitch, Charles H.


Hayday, Arthur
Millar, J. D.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Hayes, John Henry
Mills, J. E.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Milner, Major J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Montague, Frederick
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morley, Ralph
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Herriotts, J.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hollins, A.
Mort, D. L.
Sorensen, R.


Hopkin, Daniel
Moses, J. J. H.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Horrabin, J. F.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Stephen, Campbell


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Muff, G.
Strauss, G. R.


Isaacs, George
Muggeridge, H. T.
Sullivan, J.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Sutton, J. E.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Naylor, T. E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Johnston, Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Oldfield, J. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Tillett, Ben


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Tinker, John Joseph


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Toole, Joseph


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Tout, W. J.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Palin, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


Kennedy, Thomas
Palmer, E. T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Kinley, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Turner, B.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Perry, S. F.
Vaughan, D. J.


Lang, Gordon
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Walkden, A. G.


Lathan, G.
Potts, John S.
Walker, J.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Price, M. P.
Wallace, H. W.


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Pybus, Percy John
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lawrence, Susan
Quibell, D. J. K.
Watkins, F. C.


Lawson, John James
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Leach, W.
Richards, R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
West, F. R.


Lees, J.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Westwood, Joseph


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ritson, J.
White, H. G.


Lindley, Fred W.
Romeril, H. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Longbottom, A. W.
Rowson, Guy
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Longden, F.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


McElwee, A.
Sandham, E.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


McEntee, V. L.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wise, E. F.


McKinlay, A.
Scott, James
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Scrymgeour, E.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


McShane, John James
Scurr, John



Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mansfield, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Marcus, M.
Sherwood, G. H.
Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Carver, Major W. H.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Albery, Irving James
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Atkinson, C.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Balniel, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Beaumont, M. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Chapman, Sir S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Christie, J. A.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Colfox, Major William Philip
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Colman, N. C. D.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Colville, Major D. J.
Ferguson, Sir John


Bracken, B.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Fermoy, Lord


Brass, Captain Sir William
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Fielden, E. B.


Briscoe, Richard George
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Brown, Brig.-Glen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Butler, R. A.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)




Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gower, Sir Robert
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Thomson, Sir F.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Sir George
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hartington, Marquess of
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Haslam, Henry C.
Ramsbotham, H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Remer, John R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Wells, Sydney R.


Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salmon, Major I.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Womersley, W. J.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.



Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Savery, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Long, Major Eric
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Captain Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 19, line 14, disagreed with.

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 18, leave out "money or securities," and insert "property whether real or personal."

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will remember that a safeguard was introduced in reference to the reserves of transferror undertakings, and provision was made to secure that the "money or securities" would not be transferred to the transferee undertaking. The Amendment proposed to substitute "property, whether real or personal" which is a wider form of words than "money or securities."

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 20, line 9, disagreed with.

CLAUSE 14.—(Temporary Amendment of 8 Edw. 7, c. 57, s. 3.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 32, at the end, insert:
Provided that—

(a) the substitution of the words 'half an hour' for the words 'one hour' in section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall not apply as respects any mine at which, by agreement between representatives of employers and workmen, the daily hours below ground on an average taken over the twelve weekdays in any fortnight do not exceed the daily hours permissible under section one of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1919, by more than the extension of half an hour made under section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1926, and this section.
2318
(b) at any mine where an extension of time is in any week made under the said section three, the workmen, by agreement between representatives of employers and workmen, may, notwithstanding anything in the Coal Mines Act, 1908, as amended by any subsequent enactment, begin their period of work on the Saturday of that week before twenty-four hours have elapsed since the beginning of their last period of work, so long as at least eight hours have elapsed since the termination thereof."

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This brings us to the last Amendment of importance. The House will recollect that with the Bill we propose to reduce, as from a date which is fixed, the working time per day by half an hour. The effect of that is that during the currency of this Bill the working time will be reduced to 7½ hours per day, plus one winding time, and that in July of next year, when the Act of 1926 expires, the industry will revert to the seven hours per day, plus one winding time. The matter was argued at very great length in the Committee stage. It is perfectly plain that we were, as a Government, committed to a reduction of the working hours in the coalfields, and for a variety of reasons. We thought the change could be made without any injustice, so far as the miners' wages were concerned, although we gave no guarantee or pledge on this point. At that time hon. Members opposite suggested what was called the "spread-over" and that proposal has been inserted in another place in the form of words which appears on the Paper. I ask hon. Members to notice the terms of these two long paragraphs. In
the first, the. House will see that it is provided that if there is agreement—it is admitted that there must be agreement between the parties—the hours may be spread over a fortnight, but that provision in paragraph (a) is related to "any mine." That, as I understand it, means that in any colliery where there is an agreement to that effect the "spread-over" may come into operation. In most of the discussions of this matter up to this point the proposal has been applied to districts or to some unit very much wider than the individual mine and, from that point of view, the proposal is quite hopeless because if, by any chance, a device of that kind came to be applied, there would be a perfectly chaotic position of affairs with regard to hours in the coalfields of this country.
That raises the wider issue which I stressed at an early stage in our proceedings. As the House knows, the Yorkshire area and certain other areas are now working on a seven-and-a-half hours basis, together with certain sections of workers in Northumberland and Durham, and it has always been part of our case that it was desirable that the hours should be uniform throughout the country. The Bill achieves uniformity in hours because it means that in all the other districts, outside those which I have mentioned, seven-and-a-half hour day plus one winding time will become applicable. The suggestion is that in the second paragraph of the Amendment regarding the Saturday short working day there would be some kind of safeguard in reference to wages reductions when this part of the legislation came into force, but the House—certainly the Government and hon. Members on the Liberal Benches, and, also, I believe, a good many hon. Members of the Conservative Opposition—felt that it was perfectly idle to make any proposal of this kind unless it was jointly requested by the two sides of the industry.
I have always been, I trust, quite frank with my colleagues on this side of the House, particularly those who represent mining constituencies. I clearly indicated that our policy as a Government was to reduce the working day; that we proposed to do it in the terms of this Clause as it stands, and that we would never be prepared to consider any
question of a "spread-over" until the representatives of the miners and the representatives of the owners made a joint request to us to that effect. Up to this point there has been no request of that kind. On the contrary, the Miners' Federation officials and the miners' Members of Parliament have indicated that they are opposed to this proposal, and accordingly they have always had the full benefit of the pledge which I have given. That is exactly the position to-night, and it is for those reasons that I ask the House to disagree with this Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We have now reached the discussion of a subject on which I believe the whole House would like to see, if possible, an agreement not only in Parliament, but in the industry. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said, that if there is to be an arrangement of this kind, it must be an arrangement which is arrived at by agreement, that whatever may be said of the precise form of the Amendment—and I do not want to wed anybody to the detailed form of the Amendment, because it is the broad principle which we want to consider—it is common ground between us all that it is only if you get agreement between the parties that this spread-over would operate. I think I should probably agree with the President of the Board of Trade that the agreement could not be an agreement pit by pit, but that the natural thing in all these matters is that you should have district negotiations and an agreement arrived at between both sides in a district. When we discussed this matter before in the House, as far as I recollect, there was no question then of an agreement pit by pit, but that what was contemplated was that there would be the fullest and frankest negotiations in the districts, and that it was only if you got an agreement of that kind that the proposal would operate. Therefore, the first point I was making was that a genuine agreement in the industry is a condition precedent to a spread-over; and the President said that if the parties to-day were agreed, the Government, as any Government would, would be only too glad to put that agreement into their Act of Parliament. Therefore, there is a good deal of common ground between us all in principle up to that point.
The President has said, and again with truth, that if you allow the spread-over on a given day some men would be working eight hours, and that under the flat rate of this Bill they would be working seven-and-a-half hours. That is quite true, and it varies from district to district. In some districts there would be no difference of hours of work, as in my own district in Yorkshire, but if a difference comes, it comes by agreement. [Interruption.] I regard this matter as far too serious, and I regard it as far too important, to try for a settlement to make any debating or dialectical point. In some districts it may make a difference of a quarter of an hour, and in others a difference of half an hour in the day, but this is no doubt true, that when you come to the aggregate of hours worked, if you allow the spread-over, you will in no case get a greater aggregate of hours worked than under the flat rate in the Bill. Indeed, as I understand it, in not a few cases you will probably get a rather smaller aggregate of hours worked than you will under a flat rate of seven-and-a-half hours, because it may well be that while seven-and-a-half hours would give you a fortnight of 90 hours, when that work is spread over, the aggregate might be 88, or in some districts 86 hours. Therefore, the aggregate of hours worked under the spread-over could never be greater than the aggregate of hours worked under the flat rate in the Bill, and might well be less, so there is no question of principle involved in the Amendment. It is a matter of social and economic convenience; and there are a good many reasons why it should be in the interests of both the parties and in the public interest as well that there should be a power to agree upon a spread-over. Inevitably, when this Bill goes through, in whatever form it goes through, there will be four months between its passing and its coming into operation, during which the parties on both sides will have to conduct their negotiations, to face up to the conditions which the Bill has created, and to see what are the best conditions which can be settled in which to work the industry in future.
May I put to the House certain facts, none of which are in dispute, and all of which are probably to be taken from the speeches of the President of the Board
of Trade, or from the returns which the Board of Trade has issued, and all of them facts which the industry will have to consider. Indeed, they are facts upon which they will have to conduct their business after this Bill passes. The first is this. There can be no doubt that a seven-and-a-half-hour flat rate must increase the cost, at any rate for some time. It may be as much as 1s. 6d. a ton. I am not committing myself to a figure, but I am quoting the President of the Board of Trade. He said that in some districts it was alleged that it might be as much as that. I do nut think that he thinks it will be as much as that, and I hope that it will not, but it will vary from district to district, and I would not put it higher than this, that undoubtedly there must be a considerable increase in cost. It is alleged that in some districts it may mean as much as 1s. 6d., but even if it be in the region of 1s., it is a very considerable amount. Let me not take a figure; let me merely say that undoubtedly in every district there must be a considerable increase in costs under the flat rate.
Let me take the next point which follows from that. It is admitted on all sides that the industry as it stands to-day cannot afford to pay that increase in cost. That, as the President has said quite frankly, is the need for many of the Clauses in this Bill. That was plainly stated by him when he introduced the Bill. When he introduced the Bill last December, the coal industry was in a very much better position that it is to-day. There is no doubt—I wish it were otherwise—that the outlook to-day and the prospect of getting orders, are far worse than they were last September. That is true on the home side, and I think that it is much truer on the foreign side. Those who are acquainted with the export trade will bear me out that to-day, if you take Durham, Northumberland, and I think South Wales, whether you look at the ships which are under charter or the ships which are seeking charter, and the orders on hand and coming forward, the prospects in the export trade are far worse than when the Bill was introduced. That is common ground between us. The industry could not pay it when the Bill was introduced, and it is still less in a position to pay to-day.
That means that the extra cost of a flat seven-and-a-half hour day has to be borne either at the expense of wages, or at the expense of the consumer, or at the expense of both. If it is at the expense of the consumer, it is necessarily at the expense of the British consumer, because we shall not be able, try as we will, to put up the price of foreign sales at a time when stocks in the Ruhr and other places are piling up, and we are going to meet increased competition in open markets where we have to sell at the world price. I say that in no polemical spirit, but this is the worst time at which the coal trade could try to get more, or substantially more, out of British industry, because margins are so narrow that people will not undertake new ventures unless they can know for certain what their costs will be.
I would like to state the position in the light of the official figures of the Board of Trade, which have been quoted before in debate and have not been challenged. The eight-hour day undoubtedly reduced costs in the coal industry. The costs in the last quarter of 1929 were reduced over the whole country by 3s. 11d. a ton, as compared with 1926; and in South Wales the reduction was 5s. 3d. a ton. That was not, at the expense of wages, or very largely it was not, because although earnings were somewhat reduced they were not reduced by anything like the general reduction in costs. The earnings in South Wales were reduced by 1s. 4d., and over the whole of the country they fell by 1s. 2d. a shift, as compared with 1926. In taking 1926 I am taking a year which is very disadvantageous to my own argument, because in March, 1926 the subvention was still in operation, and that meant an adventitious aid of as much as 4s. a ton in some districts. Therefore even making such a comparison, which is one unfavourable to my own argument and unduly favourable to the trade, the costs other than wages under the eight-hour day fell by 2s. 9d. over the whole country and by 3s. 10d. in South Wales. Let me take another point which is common ground. The spread-over is the more important in those districts where a large amount of coal-cutting machinery is being used.
My last point is this. A permanent settlement of hours must be international.
I think that is common ground. You have already been trying to negotiate a permanent settlement of hours. What has been the result of the long negotiations which the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade conducted with such great ability at Geneva? There was a large amount of disagreement; there was agreement on only one thing, and that was that you could not come to any international arrangement on the basis of hours per day; you would only be able to get it on the basis of the aggregate hours worked in a fortnight. I need not quote chapter and verse for that, because it has often been stated that there was a practically unanimous vote for the principle, although the Conference was able to agree to little or nothing else. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That shows that when you come to make an international agreement—and it is an international agreement that will have to be made—it will be made on the basis of something like the spread-over, or nothing at all. I want to state the case as moderately as I can. The only proposition for which there was a substantial majority was that for an aggregate of a fortnight. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that there were 18 for and seven against. As regards the other propositions, there was a very large measure of disagreement. Those are facts which no one will dispute and which the industry will have to face. If I have stated a single fact which is not accurate, I invite the President of the Board of Trade to correct me.
Those are the factors which the industry will have to consider and upon which the negotiations will have to be conducted and agreements will have to be made. It is common knowledge that in this matter the miners are certainly not unanimous. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they are."] In the period between the passing of the Bill and its coming into operation, the industry will have to have regard to these factors. It is the common interest of everybody that these negotiations should take place in an atmosphere and in conditions which will yield the best results. I know the Government are as anxious as I am that there should be agreement. I make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman: If the Government are not in a position to accept this Amendment as it stands, I make two propositions. Firstly, if they find in the
four months in which the negotiations take place that the parties get together and that there is agreement in a district and if the spread-over should be approved, they should at any rate give an undertaking to the industry that, if the parties come together and ask for this Amendment to be made, they will agree to introduce an amending Bill for that purpose. I am sure, if such a proposal were made to this House when the parties were in agreement in a district, the House would be only too anxious to do it.
I believe there is a simpler way in which the Government could do it without in the least prejudicing the position. It would be quite possible for the Government—not on this Amendment, because that would be out of order—in another place to propose, as an alternative, an Amendment taking power by Order in Council to sanction an arrangement of this kind if the parties come to them and ask for it. Nothing could be fairer than that. It would not prejudice the issue either way. It is saying quite frankly to the parties that seven-and-a-half hours is the basis of the position, and, if there is no agreement to the contrary, seven-and-a-half hours stands, but that, if they get together and find, in the light of all the circumstances which they have to face in the negotiations in the months between the passing of this Bill and its operation, that it is not good business for them and that it is to the common interest of both owners and men in the district that this spread-over should operate, then it will be sanctioned. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to close the door on that suggestion, but to have the power to carry it into operation. If agreement existed now, the Government would put it in the Bill, and they should have the power to put it in operation if it is desired, in the light of experience, by the parties. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that we ought not to deprive ourselves or the parties of the possibility of something which in a few months' time may prove to be a very valuable Amendment.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House in what way this spread-over is going to work?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it is quite plain from my figures that if you have a spread-over the men will work eight hours a day. [Interruption.]
Surely, hon. Members opposite realise that, and there is no mystery about it. The spread-over means that on certain days of the week eight hours will be worked, but the men will get a clear day off on Saturday. [Interruption.] I am answering the question which was put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn), The result of the spread-over is that you get the advantage of an eight-hour day costs as compared with a seven-and-a-half-hour day cost. An influential miners' representative has asked me a very proper question, and I say that an eight-hour day for the whole country has meant a reduction in the cost of coal of 3s. 11d. per ton. It is obvious that if the men work eight hours on five days a week as against seven-and-a-half hours on six days a week you get a lower working cost. The President of the Board of Trade has admitted that you must have a much higher cost of production with a seven-and-a-half-hour day. I am proposing that that which I have suggested should be done by agreement, and, of course, there would not be any agreement unless the miners were satisfied that it paid them to adopt my suggestion.

Mr. E. D. SIMON: This Amendment raises a question of vital importance in view of the alarming condition of British industries which has become very much worse during the past few months. The President of the Board of Trade did not refer to the great change which has come over the state of the coal industry since this question was discussed some few months ago. The advantage of the debates which have taken place on this subject has been that we have now got all the facts before us. One of the main facts is that a seven-and-a-half-hour day will increase the cost of the production of coal by varying amounts up to 10 per cent.—

Mr. HARTSHORN: How does the hon. Member arrive at that figure?

12 m.

Mr. SIMON: It is quite obvious that the seven-and-a-half hour day will increase the cost, and it has been estimated that the amount will be something approaching an additional 10 per cent. on the cost of coal. Another main factor is that the reorganisation of the industry will not work out very quickly and that during the period between October
this year and July next year you cannot secure any effective reduction in the cost of production through reorganisation. If we pass this Measure which provides for a seven-and-a-half hour day it is obvious that we shall have to face an increased cost in the coal-exporting districts approaching something like 10 per cent. during the nine months period which I have just mentioned. The reason why I feel so strongly on this question is because conditions have changed very much for the worse during the last three or four months. In the debates on the unemployment problem hon. Members on all sides of the House have deplored the increasing unemployment figures, and we have been told that the total of the unemployed on the register is likely to reach 2,000,000. Of course, we are ready to take almost any step to improve the position if we can agree as to what ought to be done. In the cotton trade of Lancashire, unemployment has reached the appalling figure of 36 per cent., and in one town it is 58 per cent. Almost all our export trades are considerably worse than they were a few months ago, and an increase of 10 per cent. in the cost of coal will increase the depression in our export trade still further. That is the reason why it seems to me that this is a most unfortunate moment to put an extra 10 per cent. on the cost of coal.
At the time when this Bill was introduced it was hoped that by the quota the owners would be able to arrange matters in such a way as not to reduce wages, but, so far as I understand the matter, the coalowners now say that, if this Bill necessitates a seven-and-a-half hour day for miners, they will be forced to reduce wages. A few days ago Sir David Llewellyn, a well-known member of the Welsh Coalowners' Association, stated that if the seven-and-a-half hour day came into force the only possible way of continuing working the mines would be by adopting a drastic reduction in wages. It was hoped when this Bill was introduced that that kind of thing would be avoided. That hope has now to be given up. I was very interested to read a long correspondence between Sir David Llewellyn and a very able Member of the House discussing whether Sir David's figures and facts were correct. The answer given by the hon. Gentleman
practically amounted to this. If it costs 1s. 6d. a ton more on coal in South Wales, why cannot we get that back by a levy on the richer collieries in England? Surely that would have an even more deleterious effect on the export trade and on unemployment. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government consulted the Economic Advisory Committee as to the effect of the Bill on the coal industry and, through the coal industry, on unemployment. I predict that, if they have, they will have received a very chilling answer. It is a common practice of trade unions, when they desire to raise wages or to shorten hours, to select a time when the industry is doing well and there are profits, but here is the Government selecting a time when the industry is more depressed than it has ever been before and trying to increase costs at that very moment. I should like to press the right hon. Gentleman as to the opinion of a Economic Advisory Committee, appointed by themselves, on this very extraordinary procedure.
It is generally rumoured that the main opposition to this proposal of the spread-over comes from hon. Members opposite who represent mining constituencies rather than from the Miners' Federation, which is reported to be more inclined to negotiate than they are. I have also heard from a great many people that many of the men rather take the view of the Miners' Federation than of hon. Members opposite. One can perfectly understand it. The party opposite was pledge to introduce a Seven Hours Bill as soon as it came into office. They found it was impracticable, and they had to compromise. I freely recognise that to ask them to give way further and to accept a 90-hour fortnight is to ask a good deal from them, and I would only take this line in view of what seems to be a grave national emergency. The unemployment situation is graver than it has even been for the last 50 years. I appeal to the Government to reconsider the question. I appeal to the miners' Members to see whether they cannot reach some compromise, not necessarily this Amendment, not necessarily 90 hours, but possibly an 88 or 86 hours spread-over, to see whether something cannot be done to reduce the added burden of 10 per cent. on the cost of coal. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to wait
and see whether the Miners' Federation and the owners reach agreement, but to call them together and see whether he cannot persuade them to come to an agreement and arrive at some compromise which will avoid any of this extra burden on a declining and depressed industry.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I have listened throughout the whole of this debate to what has been said on the reduction of costs which would result from the spread-over as compared with the application of a flat seven-and-a-half-hour day. I have not heard a word from any Member, either in this House or in another place—I have listened to the debates in both Houses—in support or in explanation of how there is going to be a lower cost by the spread-over than by the flat seven-and-a-half-hour day. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) a question about this matter, and he gave figures which were a comparison between a seven-hour day and an eight-hour day, and not a comparison between a seven-and-a-half-hour day and 90 hours in a fortnight. We have had no answer to that question. When I asked the hon. Gentleman the Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) to explain the position, all that he could say was that some coal-owners had been saying what would be the effect of the proposal. I am going to tell the House why we would infinitely prefer to have this Bill defeated and bear the consequences than to have the spread-over. The hon. Member has just said that the opposition is coming from the miners' Members of this House and not from miners' members outside The miners' national executive have unanimously decided against the spread-over, and at every meeting of miners which I have addressed in the country, the miners have been absolutely united. If the case were put to the miners of this country, there would not be one miner in the land who would support the spread-over.
The President of the Board of Trade said that this was the last of the important Amendments put down for consideration to-night. It is a vital Amendment, and it is because the coal-owners know that it is a good method of destroying the whole usefulness of the Bill that they have introduced it. The Bill, when it was originally introduced and as it left this House, would not have affected in
any shape or form one-third of the miners in this country. Already, the hewers in Northumberland and in Durham, the whole of the mine workers in Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Kent, and North Derbyshire have a seven-and-a-half-hour working day. The Bill, if it had been passed in the form in which it was originally introduced, would not have affected these coalfields one iota. It does not matter if you pass the Bill as it now is or whether you make the spread-over, unless some change is made in these coalfields, they will not be affected in any way. These coalfields represent one-third of the whole of the mining industry. With regard to the other two-thirds, and as far as the workmen employed underground are concerned, if the Bill is passed the men will get a reduction of two-and-a-half hours per week in their working time, practically half-an-hour on five days a week.
What will happen if the spread-over takes place? Another third will be added to the third already mentioned who will get nothing under the Bill at all. In Scotland, generally speaking, the miners work 11 hours a fortnight in eight-hour shifts. They work 88 hours a fortnight. Now, the owners say: "What we want is a 90 hours' spread. Indeed, we will make it 88 instead of 90." In the other House it was clearly explained that the intention in Scotland is to have six days of eight hours one week and five days of eight hours the next week—11 days of eight hours, making a total of 88 hours, precisely what it is to-day. In South Wales the afternoon and night shift men work five shifts of eight hours per week—40 hours. I worked in the mines in South Wales over 40 years ago, and that system was in operation then as it is in operation to-day. The Welsh coal-owners know that if they can make the hours 45 a week these men who are now working eight hours a shift will not have any reduction. That is why they want the spread-over, so that there will be no change, and so that they can retain the eight-hour day. That is where the reduction of cost is to come in—by keeping things as they are at present. Scotland and South Wales will be unaffected by the Bill if the spread-over is to be adopted. In Northumberland and Durham the hewers already work a seven-and-a-half hours day and, generally speaking, the other workers do 11 days a fortnight, so that
there will be no change if there is to be a 90 hours spread. When you have added Northumberland, Durham, Scotland, and the afternoon and night shift men of South Wales, you have added another third to the men who will not benefit. Whereas under the Bill as introduced one-third of the miners were not affected, this spread-over will introduce another third who will not be affected.
Therefore, under the spread-over, two-thirds, instead of one-third will get nothing from the Bill. What about the other third? They will get nothing out of the Bill except a mean insult. In most of the coalfields they have a short Saturday. In Yorkshire they work seven hours, so that they will not be affected in any case; in Nottingham five-and-a-half, in North Derby five-and-a-half, in Kent six-and-a-half, in Leicester five-and-a-quarter, in Cannock Chase five-and-a-half and in Warwick five-and-a-half. In most of these cases the men have given up half of their day's wage on Saturday in order to have a short day. In the bulk of the cases they are working 45 to 46 hours, in some cases 45½—five eight hours and five-and-a-half hours. Under the Bill as it stands they will get five half-hours off in five days, but if you spread-over they will be told: "You are only working 45½ hours. Under the spread you will work 45 hours." They will get half-an-hour off in a week, and in some cases only a quarter of an hour off in a week. That is what will be done for only one-third of the mine workers if the spread is adopted. If we are to have a Bill which will not affect two-thirds of the mine workers, and in respect of the other third will only produce the measly change to which I have referred, we would prefer not to have the Bill. I can understand hon. Members and the general public having apprehensions about the Bill and about adding to the cost of anything; but to talk about giving the mine workers a reduction of hours and then to introduce this spread-over, is pure, unadulterated hypocrisy. Oppose the Bill if you like, on broad general lines, but do not let us have this pretence that you are supporting something in the interests of the miners, while this spread-over is being suggested.
The hon. Member for Withington, having read something which Sir David
Llewellyn has stated, said, "That settles it." Whatever hopes there were of retaining wages before that statement proves that they have gone. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that the miners have not given up hope of retaining the miserable wage they are getting with the seven-and-a-half-hour day. Is it not fair that they should? We had a seven-hour day in 1919 as a result—[An HON. MEMBER: "Of the War!"]—of the War if you like—as a result of the recommendation of a Royal Commission appointed by the Coalition Government, in a boom period and at a time when it was easy to get anything through the House. In 1926, another Royal Commission, at a time when the industry was as depressed as it has ever been and when it was receiving a very substantial subsidy, declared that if the miners had an eight-hour day they would be in a worse position than any miners in Europe, and that second Royal Commission decided against increasing the hours. It was done in defiance of that recommendation and in exactly the same way as it is proposed to be done if the Amendment is carried. It is suggested it should be done by agreement; let us get the owners and workmen to agree. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Simply because they will not agree to anything. They have had 12 months in which to come to an agreement if they wish, and all that would happen if the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Hendon is accepted is that an Order in Council is to be issued subject to agreement between the miners and the owners. The coalowners would say from beginning to end, "You must have a reduction in wages, we will not agree to anything else," and they will talk about closing pits and fighting the men. We shall be faced with the same struggle as we have had in the past. We do not want four months of that atmosphere and negotiations under conditions like that. If the owners wished to come to an agreement on wages and hours and general working conditions they never had a better atmosphere in the miners' executive and among the miners themselves than recently, but they have said that they will not agree to anything except under force majeure. Now they are depending upon the other place to do for them what they might
have done themselves if they had adopted a reasonable attitude in the matter.
We are satisfied that the Amendment, if carried, can only result in very serious trouble during the next four months. As soon as this Bill is passed we have to make agreements in every coalfield in Britain, and the coalowners know that they can hold the threat over the heads of the miners and that unless the miners agree to a reduction of wages they will insist upon an Order in Council changing these hours. There will be not a little bit of hope of getting an agreement entered into. We would rather not have the Bill than have it with this Amendment. I hope the House will reject this Amendment by an overwhelming majority, and that the other place will not attempt to insist upon it. The best interests of the country and the mining industry would not be served by any attempt to insert this Amendment.

Major COLVILLE: It is not my intention to introduce a contentious note into this very serious matter, but I feel that one or two statements by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken should be answered. He never quoted any figures with regard to the results in these particular coalfields. He mentioned the coalfield of Scotland as working an average of 11 days of eight hours in the fortnight. If the change is made to seven-and-a-half hours there will be a certain increase of cost. The amount has been stated at 1s. 6d. I think it will be

less. The ascertainment for the first three months of this year showed a credit of 7d. per ton, but the ascertainment for April showed a debit of.7 of a penny. The question I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman is how is that going to be made up in order to avoid a reduction of the wages of these men?

I am as anxious as anyone to see a way out. We do not want a repetition of 1926 with its strife and struggle. I earnestly ask that time should be given to look into this matter, to see if agreement cannot be arrived at. You cannot get more out of a pint pot than a pint. If there is not the money in the industry there will be a reduction of the earnings, or the Bill will result in raising the price sufficiently to avoid that. We have always expressed doubts as to the marketing schemes being able to force up prices in a market which will not respond. I have these doubts, knowing the position of the iron and steel trade and the export trade. Does the right hon. Gentleman see any way out of the difficulty in the districts where there is a deficit of ½d. per ton at present? If he cannot see a way out why does not he accept our suggestion, so that an agreement may be arrived at?

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 103.

Division No. 344].
AYES.
[12.29 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Burgess, F. G.
Gibbins, Joseph


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Gill, T. H.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Cape, Thomas
Gillett, George M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gossling, A. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Charieton, H. C.
Gould, F.


Ammon, Charles George
Church, Major A. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Arnott, John
Clarke, J. S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Cluse, W. S.
Granville, E.


Ayles, Walter
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gray, Milner


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Daggar, George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barnes, Alfred John
Dallas, George
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlsbro' W.)


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Groves, Thomas E.


Bellamy, Albert
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Dickson, T.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Benson, G.
Dukes, C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Duncan, Charles
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Ede, James Chuter
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Edge, Sir William
Harbison, T. J.


Bowen, J. W.
Edmunds, J. E.
Harbord, A.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hardie, George D.


Bromfield, William
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Harris, Percy A.


Brooke, W.
Elmley, Viscount
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Foot, Isaac
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Brawn, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Freeman, Peter
Haycock, A. W.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hayday, Arthur


Buchanan, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Hayes, John Henry


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mathers, George
Shillaker, J. F.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Matters, L. W.
Shinwell, E.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Maxton, James
Simmons, C. J.


Herriotts, J.
Melville, Sir James
Sinkinson, George


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Messer, Fred
Sitch, Charles H.


Hopkin, Daniel
Middleton, G.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Horrabin, J. F.
Mills, J. E.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Milner, Major J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morley, Ralph
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Johnston, Thomas
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mort, D. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Moses, J. J. H.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muff, G.
Strauss, G. R.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Sullivan, J.


Kennedy, Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sutton, J. E.


Kinley, J.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Oldfield, J. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lathan, G.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Tinker, John Joseph


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Tout, W. J.


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Townend, A. E.


Lawrence, Susan
Palin, John Henry
Turner, B.


Lawson, John James
Palmer, E. T.
Vaughan, D. J.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Perry, S. F.
Walker, J.


Leach, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Potts, John S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Price, M. P.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lees, J.
Pybus, Percy John
Wellock, Wilfred


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lindley, Fred W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Westwood, Joseph


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rathbone, Eleanor
White, H. G.


Longbottom, A. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Longden, F.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ritson, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Romeril, H. G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


McElwee, A.
Rowson, Guy
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


McEntee, V. L.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


McKinlay, A.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


McShane, John James
Sanders, W. S.
Wise, E. F.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sawyer, G. F.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Mansfield, W.
Scurr, John



Marcus, M.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Markham, S. F.
Sherwood, G. H.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Marley, J.
Shield, George William
Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atkinson, C.
England, Colonel A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Remer, John R.


Balniel, Lord
Ferguson, Sir John
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Beaumont, M. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fielden, E. B.
Salmon, Major I.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Boyce, H. L.
Gower, Sir Robert
Savery, S. S.


Bracken, B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brass, Captain Sir William
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Thomson, Sir F.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Warrender, Sir Victor


Christie, J. A.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Colfox, Major William Philip
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Colville, Major D. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wells, Sydney R.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Womersley, W. J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Long, Major Eric
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)



Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Marjoribanks, E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mond, Hon. Henry
Sir George Penny and Captain


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wallace.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Power to constitute Coal Mines National Industrial Board and functions thereof.)

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 13, after the word "and" insert
the Chairman of the National Board shall not be a member of any of the bodies aforesaid.
(2).

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps it will be convenient, and it may shorten our proceedings, if I indicate that the remaining Amendments are either drafting Amendments or consequential, and I propose to ask the House to agree with all of them.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 23, line 31, agreed to.

SCHEDULE.—(Part 11: Provisions as to Amalgamations and adjustment of Districts.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 15, leave out "July, nineteen hundred and thirty," and insert "January, nineteen hundred and thirty-one."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I ask a question? We are changing the date of the Bill. That is a most important change, and I would like to ask why it is being made. I would like to know whether it is because there would not otherwise be time to carry out the necessary arrangements. This can hardly be said to be consequential on the other Amendments in the Bill.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The reason for this change is exactly as given by the hon. and gallant Member. This change is necessary because of the much later date at which the Bill becomes law. We are making the alteration for that and for no other reason.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Mr. William Graham, Mr. Turner, Mr. Thomas
Williams, Mr. Foot, and Commodore King.

Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS (VALUATION FOR RATING) BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I want to take this opportunity of objecting very strongly to this matter being dealt with at this time of night. I beg to remind the Minister that the Second Reading of the Bill was taken, I think, at either two or three o'clock in the morning in spite of the protests of hon. Members on this side of the House. It is an important Bill in many respects, and anyone glancing at its Clauses will see that it certainly makes a very considerable alteration in the law of this country. It was a surprise and an objectionable thing that the Second Reading of the Bill, although to a large extent it may have been a matter of agreement, was taken at that time. We made our protest, but we were told on the Second Reading that the Bill was a matter of arrangement between the railway companies and the Government, that it carried out very generally a bargain that had been made, and that we could be assured that the whole of the contents of the Bill were in satisfactory form and followed out the general arrangement that had been arrived at. That assurance was given also on the Committee stage of the Bill.
It is a most surprising thing, knowing as I do the Ministry of Health and the care of the Department, that we should now be confronted, at a quarter to one in the morning, with a series of Amendments consisting of no less than seven pages. I have gone to some trouble to see whether these Amendments are of
a drafting character, but from what was stated in another place that is not the case. There are not only Amendments of a drafting character, but also Amendments clarifying particular points and Amendments on points of technical detail. It certainly calls for some scrutiny on the part of the House why these matters were not all considered when the Bill was first presented to the House. No one can blame the Opposition in a case of this kind for saying that, as the Government have put down this business after a very heavy day, we ought to have some explanation. In those circumstances, I appeal to the Leader of the House—if he is here—or the Deputy-Leader—if he is here—or to anyone who happens to be in charge—perhaps the Attorney-General, who stated at a dinner a short time ago that he was going to see that all these Bills were put in proper form so that the public could understand them. I hope he will take these Amendments to the next dinner he goes to and show them how he has succeeded in his task. In any event, I make this protest and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, as he is apparently in charge, whether he will withdraw these Amendments in order to give us some opportunity of discussing the Bill. Otherwise, I shall divide with my hon. Friends as a protest.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As a very retiring back bench Member I wish to protest very strongly against having to consider these Amendments at this time of the night. I think it is extraordinarily difficult, when we have a Bill of this size, that we should have to take it late and consider Amendments that will undoubtedly have to be very carefully looked into. Many of us who have been suffering for the past few hours because we could not get the advice of the Attorney-General may be desirous of getting information from him that we could not get earlier. But I think there are other reasons why we should object to considering this particular Bill now. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has pointed out that this Bill has never had full and proper consideration in this House. I see there is no person in charge of the Front Bench at the present time
who is likely to be able to give us a proper and adequate explanation as to why these Amendments should be taken at all, and why we should accept them or otherwise. In making these observations at the present time, I would like to say one further thing, or two. The hon. Members opposite who may at the present time think it is a good thing to go on for many hours on end might, after all, follow the advice given by them to other people. We do ask for reasonable time and reasonable hours. Hon. Members opposite might follow the rules they advocate for other people in other places and allow us to end at a normal and proper time.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): It is quite true that there was no debate on the Second Reading, and the reason is that this is a Bill of a very highly technical character, but by no means controversial. The railway companies, and the local authorities, had agreed to it and, therefore, the House gave the Second Reading without debate. There was another opportunity for discussion in the Committee stage. In that Committee, certain explanations were asked for and given. The Committee met at Eleven o'Clock, and at a quarter to Twelve the Committee was absolutely and perfectly satisfied with the explanations. It is not the case that no opportunity was given for discussion. There was the Committee stage, and, if there had been the slightest objection inside the room, or outside, on the part of the great interests concerned, those objections would have found reflection in the Committee. It went up to another place which put down what looked like a formidable list of Amendments.

Sir K. WOOD: Not another place, but the Ministry of Health.

Miss LAWRENCE: These things are done by the House of Commons or another place. They amended the Bill on a great number of small drafting points. The bulk of these Amendments are drafting, but there are one or two minor technical points. Every one of them has been discussed with the representatives of the railway companies and the local authorities. They are all anxious to have the Bill. The Bill is purely a
machinery Bill, and I ask the House, even at this late hour, to put it through this stage.

Mr. J. JONES: I will say something even at this early hour. I once saw a play written by a namesake of my own—Henry Arthur Jones—called the "Hypocrite." The principal character in the play gave an exhibition of the kind of thing which we have heard tonight from the hon. Members opposite.

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Bill; it does not seem to be relevant.

Mr. JONES: Neither are the speeches of the hon. Members opposite relevant to the Bill.

Question put, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 47.

Division No. 345.]
AYES.
[12.55 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel Baker, P. J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Haycock, A. W.
Oldfield, J. R.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hayes, John Henry
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Palin, John Henry


Alpass, J. H.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Palmer, E. T.


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Arnott, John
Herriotts, J.
Perry, S. F.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Potts, John S.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hopkin, Daniel
Price, M. P.


Barnes, Alfred John
Horrabin, J. F.
Pybus, Percy John


Bellamy, Albert
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Benson, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Johnston, Thomas
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ritson, J.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Romeril, H. G.


Bowen, J. W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Rowson, Guy


Brooke, W.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Kennedy, Thomas
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kinley, J.
Sawyer, G. F.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shield, George William


Burgess, F. G.
Lathan, G.
Shillaker, J. F.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Shinwell, E.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawrence, Susan
Simmons, C. J.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Sinkinson, George


Church, Major A. G.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sitch, Charles H.


Clarke, J. S.
Leach, W.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Daggar, George
Lees, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dallas, George
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, Fred W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Dickson, T.
Longbottom, A. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Dukes, C.
Longden, F.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Duncan, Charles
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Strauss, G. R.


Ede, James Chuter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sullivan, J.


Edmunds, J. E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McElwee, A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Elmley, Viscount
McEntee, V. L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Freeman, Peter
McKinlay, A.
Tout, W. J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McShane, John James
Vaughan, D. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wallace, H. W.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Mansfield, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gill, T. H.
Marcus, M.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Marley, J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Gossling, A. G.
Mathers, George
Westwood, Joseph


Gould, F.
Maxton, James
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Messer, Fred
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mills, J. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Granville, E.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gray, Milner
Montague, Frederick
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morley, Ralph
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Moses, J. J. H.



Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hardie, George D.
Muff, G.
Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balniel, Lord
Boyce, H. L.


Albery, Irving James
Beaumont, M. W.
Bracken, B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Briscoe, Richard George


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Thomson, Sir F.


Colville, Major D. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wells, Sydney R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Penny, Sir George
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Womersley, W. J.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)



Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Warrender.


Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 11.—(Alterations of railway valuation roll during quinquennial period.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 10, at the end, insert:
(c) any premises which have been treated by the Authority as forming part of a railway hereditament occupied by the company, or as not forming part of any railway hereditament so occupied, ought to be treated differently by reason of some change which has, since the date on which the draft of the relevant part of the roll was settled, occurred in the occupation, or the character of the occupation, of those premises; or

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Sir K. WOOD: I think we ought to have some explanation of this Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: Clause 11 provides machinery for altering the railway valuation during the quinquennial period on certain grounds such as some change which has occurred in the occupation or the character of the occupation of railway hereditatments. It is necessary to have some provision for dealing with parts of hereditaments which change their character, and this Clause is put in for that purpose.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 31, line 12, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions with respect to the submission and approval of Schemes for applying the Act to a Railway Company to which it does not apply.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, leave out lines 7 to 12, and insert:
1. A scheme for applying all or any of the provisions of this Act, either with or without adaptations and modifications, to a railway company to which this Act does not for the time being apply, being a company whose principal business is the working of a railway or of a light railway as defined in sub-section (3) of section five of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, may be submitted to the Minister by the railway company concerned or by the Railway Assessment Authority.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I would like to hear from the Attorney-General what the bearing of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act of 1928 is on this particular Amendment. It is a matter of some interest to me, and, if the hon. and learned Gentleman could give me some information as to its bearing, it would save me a great deal of trouble and a great deal of worry. It would assist matters, as far as I am concerned, very greatly.

Miss LAWRENCE: This Amendment has, first of all, to be read with two or three of the other Amendments which have already been passed dealing with the definition of railway companies. There are two kinds of railway companies. There are the great principal railway companies to which Clause 1 applies, and there are minor railways which come under the First Schedule. The point raised is that, unless this definition is made, we would have a number of small light railways, mineral railways, and so forth, coming under the provisions of this part of the Bill which is clearly only intended to apply to the railways that I have mentioned. We have therefore decided to adopt the definition here so that it deals with these railways.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MILITARY MANOEUVRES, 1930 MILITARY MANOEUVRES ACTS, 1897 AND 1911 (ORDER-IN-COUNCIL).

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make an Order in Council under the Military Manoeuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 27th day of March last."—[Mr. Shinwell.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — AIR TRANSPORT (SUBSIDY AGREEMENTS) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of Worthington Church and Edmund George Smithard, carrying on business as the Swaffham Gas Light and Coke Company, which was presented on the 2nd day of May and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Woking District Gas Company, which was presented on the 9th day of May and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Redcar, which was presented on the 15th day of May and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Ashborne and part of the rural district of Ashborne, in the county of Derby, and part of the rural district of Mayfield, in the county of Stafford, which was presented on the 13th day of May, 1930, be approved.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven, of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes after One o'Clock a.m.